-
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022The objective of this study was to measure the efficacy of various types and dosages of statins on C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with dyslipidemia or...
The effect of various types and doses of statins on C-reactive protein levels in patients with dyslipidemia or coronary heart disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to measure the efficacy of various types and dosages of statins on C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with dyslipidemia or coronary heart disease.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, OpenGray, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for data extraction and synthesis. The pairwise meta-analysis compared statins and controls using a random-effects model, and a network meta-analysis compared the types and dosages of statins using the Bayesian random-effects model. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021242067.
RESULTS
The study included 37 randomized controlled trials with 17,410 participants and 20 interventions. According to the pairwise meta-analysis, statins significantly decreased CRP levels compared to controls (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.31, -0.64], < 0.0001). In the network meta-analysis, simvastatin 40 mg/day appeared to be the best strategy for lowering CRP (Rank = 0.18, WMD = -4.07, 95% CI = [-6.52, -1.77]). The same was true for the high-sensitivity CRP, non-acute coronary syndrome (ACS), <12 months duration, and clear measurement subgroups. In the CRP subgroup (rank = 0.79, WMD = -1.23, 95% CI = [-2.48, -0.08]) and ≥12-month duration subgroup (Rank = 0.40, WMD = -2.13, 95% CI = [-4.24, -0.13]), atorvastatin 80 mg/day was most likely to be the best. There were no significant differences in the dyslipidemia and ACS subgroups ( > 0.05). Node-splitting analysis showed no significant inconsistency ( > 0.05), except for the coronary heart disease subgroup.
CONCLUSION
Statins reduced serum CRP levels in patients with dyslipidemia or coronary heart disease. Simvastatin 40 mg/day might be the most effective therapy, and atorvastatin 80 mg/day showed the best long-term effect. This study provides a reference for choosing statin therapy based on LDL-C and CRP levels.
PubMed: 35966518
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.936817 -
Reumatologia 2022Statins are a class of lipid-lowering medications used worldwide by millions of people and are safe for frequent use in most patients. However, they cause necrotizing... (Review)
Review
Statins are a class of lipid-lowering medications used worldwide by millions of people and are safe for frequent use in most patients. However, they cause necrotizing autoimmune myopathy in some patients. We reviewed case reports of 80 patients from 2010 to present diagnosed with statin-induced necrotizing autoimmune myopathy (SINAM), aiming to analyze the clinical, physiological, serologic characteristics and outcomes of SINAM. The mean age of these patients was 66 ±9.4, the majority being male (61.3%). All patients reported proximal muscle weakness, and a few had myalgias, extra muscular symptoms such as dysphagia, and pulmonary complications. Most of the patients were on atorvastatin, simvastatin, or rosuvastatin. The mean creatine kinase was 10,094.2 ±7,351.7 U/l, and anti-3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase enzyme was positive for 93.8% of patients. The majority of patients were started on steroids; other treatments were also used. Prompt cessation of statins and initiation of immunosuppressants reduced morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 35645423
DOI: 10.5114/reum.2022.114108 -
Current Reviews in Clinical and... 2023A subpopulation of statin users such as subjects with chronic kidney disease (CKD), Human Immune virus (HIV), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), revascularization, metabolic...
BACKGROUND
A subpopulation of statin users such as subjects with chronic kidney disease (CKD), Human Immune virus (HIV), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), revascularization, metabolic syndrome, and/or diabetes may particularly benefit from pitavastatin pharmacotherapy.
AIM
The current systematic review aimed systematically to evaluate the effect of pitavastatin on primary cardiac events in subjects receiving pitavastatin in comparison to the other four statin members.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review on phases III and IV of randomized controlled trials (RCT-s, 11 trials) for subjects with primary cardiac events who received pitavastatin. Subjects diagnosed with any type of dyslipidemia (population 4804) and received pitavastatin (interventions) versus comparator (comparison) with the primary efficacy endpoint of minimization of LDL-C and non- HDL-C, had an increase in HDL-C and/or reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (fatal/nonfatal), and stroke (fatal/nonfatal) and/or their composite (outcomes). The secondary safety endpoint was the development of any adverse effects.
RESULTS
In the included trials (11), participants (4804) were randomized for pitavastatin or its comparators such as atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin and followed up for 12 to 52 weeks. In terms of the primary outcome (reduction in LDL-C), pitavastatin 4 mg was superior to pravastatin 40 mg in three trials, while the 2 mg pitavastatin was comparable to atorvastatin 10 mg in four trials and simvastatin 20 and 40 mg in two 2 trials. However, rosuvastatin 2.5 mg was superior to pitavastatin 2 mg in two trials. Pitavastatin increased HDL-C and reduced non-HDL-C in eleven trials. Regarding the safety profile, pitavastatin has proved to be tolerated and safe.
CONCLUSION
The FDA-approved indications for pitavastatin included primary dyslipidemia and mixed dyslipidemia as a supplementary therapy to dietary changes to lower total cholesterol, LDL-C, apolipoprotein B (Apo B), triglycerides (TG), and enhance HDL-C. Pitavastatin might be suitable for subjects with diabetes, ACS (reduced revascularization), metabolic syndrome, CKD, HIV, and subjects with low levels of HDL-C. We highly recommend rational individualization for the selection of statin.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Atorvastatin; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Pravastatin; Cholesterol, LDL; Metabolic Syndrome; Cholesterol, HDL; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin; Dyslipidemias; Cardiovascular Diseases; HIV Infections
PubMed: 35642121
DOI: 10.2174/2772432817666220531115314 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology Aug 2022Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequently reported postcardiac surgery complication leading to increased in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. Many... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequently reported postcardiac surgery complication leading to increased in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently suggested using statins to protect against POAF. Therefore, we performed a systematic literature search and meta-analysis in electronic databases for eligible studies published between January 2006 and January 2022. The principal inclusion criteria were as follows: RCTs' study design, statin-naive patients, total study participants ≥50 units, and statin pretreatment started no more than 21 days before cardiac surgery. In the primary analysis, statin pretreatment reduced the incidence of POAF compared with placebo. Analyzing different molecules, atorvastatin was associated with lower incidence of POAF but rosuvastatin was not. We therefore performed a sensitivity analysis excluding RCTs affected by important risk of biases. Thus, studies whose participants were ≥199 were those eligible for the secondary analysis. No statistically significant difference between statin pretreatment and placebo (OR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.07, P = 0.18) as well as for atorvastatin (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.61-1.28; P = 0.48; I 2 = 84%) and rosuvastatin (OR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68-1.12, P = 0.29) was observed. To conclude, statin pretreatment before cardiac surgery is not associated with a significant reduction in POAF occurrence.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Postoperative Complications; Rosuvastatin Calcium
PubMed: 35580320
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000001294 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022We aim to compare the effectiveness of different drug treatments in improving recurrence in patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Eligible randomized...
We aim to compare the effectiveness of different drug treatments in improving recurrence in patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective trials were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from database inception to December 2021. After the available studies following inclusion and exclusion criteria were screened, the main outcome measures were strictly extracted. Taking the random-effects model, dichotomous data were determined and extracted by odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI), and a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was generated to calculate the ranking probability of comparative effectiveness among each drug intervention. Moreover, we used the node-splitting model to evaluate inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of our network meta-analysis (NMA). Funnel plots were used to evaluate publication bias. From the 318 articles found during initial citation screening, 11 RCTs and 3 prospective trials ( = 3,456 participants) were ultimately included in our study. Our NMA results illustrated that atorvastatin + dexamethasone (ATO+DXM) (OR = 0.06, 95% CrI 0.01, 0.89) was the most effective intervention to improve recurrence in patients with CSDH (SUCRA = 89.40%, 95% CrI 0.29, 1.00). Four drug interventions [ATO+DXM (OR = 0.06, 95% CrI 0.01, 0.89), DXM (OR = 0.18, 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41), tranexamic acid (TXA) (OR = 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41), and ATO (OR = 0.41, 95% CrI 0.12, 0.90)] achieved statistical significance in improving recurrence in CSDH patients compared with the placebo (PLB) or standard neurosurgical treatment (SNT) group. Our NMA showed that ATO+DXM, DXM, ATO, and TXA had definite efficacy in improving recurrence in CSDH patients. Among them, ATO+DXM is the best intervention for improving recurrence in patients with CSDH in this particular population. Multicenter rigorous designed prospective randomized trials are still needed to evaluate the role of various drug interventions in improving neurological function or outcome. (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=299491), identifier (CRD 42022299491).
PubMed: 35401183
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.845386 -
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 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2022To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.
RESULTS
After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial).
CONCLUSION
Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Agents; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35322889
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15331 -
Andrologia Jul 2022Atorvastatin may be an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether atorvastatin therapy is effective in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Atorvastatin may be an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether atorvastatin therapy is effective in the treatment of ED. All published research on atorvastatin in the treatment of ED patients in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane were investigated till 30 October 2021. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was done to investigate the efficacy of atorvastatin and placebo in the treatment of ED. Moreover, we also performed a meta-analysis based on single-arm trials (SATs) to explore the atorvastatin treatment on the efficacy of ED. In a meta-analysis based on RCTs, the weighted mean difference of the change of International Index for Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) score in the atorvastatin treatment group with or without treatment was 4.53 (95 per cent confidence interval [CI] of 3.28-5.79) higher than in the control group. In an SAT-based meta-analysis, the ES of the change in IIEF-5 score in the atorvastatin treatment group before and after treatment was 3.22 (95 per cent CI of 1.32-5.12). Atorvastatin is an effective therapeutic drug for patients with ED. However, we expect that more multicentre clinical trials will be conducted to support this assertion.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35224753
DOI: 10.1111/and.14408 -
Pharmacotherapy Apr 2022Colchicine and statins are frequently co-prescribed for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases, auto-inflammatory diseases, and gout. Both are substrates... (Review)
Review
Colchicine and statins are frequently co-prescribed for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases, auto-inflammatory diseases, and gout. Both are substrates and inhibitors of the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) 3A4 isozyme and P-glycoprotein so that taken together, they represent a clinically significant interaction. Data suggest the interaction may be associated with potentially life-threatening myopathies and rhabdomyolysis. The purposes of this systematic review (SR) were to gather and appraise evidence surrounding the statin-colchicine drug interaction and discuss related risk-mitigation strategies. An electronic literature search was performed. Twenty-one articles met the protocol to be included in the qualitative analysis: 18 case reports/series, 2 retrospective observational cohort studies, and 1 retrospective case-control study. Thirty-eight patients developed an adverse drug event (ADE) receiving statin-colchicine combination therapy; 25 (66%) patients developed myopathy; 10 (26%) patients developed rhabdomyolysis, and three (8%) patients developed neuromyopathy. Over 70% of patients developed ADEs on simvastatin or atorvastatin, and 80% of studies reported moderate-to-high intensity statins. Colchicine dosing varied but ranged between 0.5 to 1.5 mg daily. Sixty-two percent of patients in the case reports/series had comorbid renal disease. Seven studies (33% of all included studies) reported patients taking concomitant interacting medications at the CYP3A4 and/or P-glycoprotein efflux pump. Seventeen studies (81% of all included studies) reported ADEs leading to hospitalization. A multivariate analysis from one case-control study identified risk factors prognosticating myopathy ADEs in patients taking statin-colchicine therapy: comorbid renal disease and/or cirrhosis, colchicine doses 1.2 mg daily or greater, and concomitant interacting medications. Clinicians must be cognizant that the statin-colchicine drug interaction may lead to patient harm and thus should employ risk-mitigation strategies for statin-associated muscle symptoms. Future studies are warranted to validate clinically relevant risk factors that are strongly associated with the complications owing to the statin-colchicine drug interaction.
Topics: ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 1; Case-Control Studies; Colchicine; Drug Interactions; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Muscular Diseases; Retrospective Studies; Rhabdomyolysis
PubMed: 35175631
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2674 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Depression occurs frequently in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with a poor prognosis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in CAD patients with comorbid depression.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to August 2020. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2021. We examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and contacted primary authors. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs investigating psychological and pharmacological interventions for depression in adults with CAD and comorbid depression. Our primary outcomes included depression, mortality, and cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were healthcare costs and utilisation, health-related quality of life, cardiovascular vital signs, biomarkers of platelet activation, electrocardiogram wave parameters, non-cardiac adverse events, and pharmacological side effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently examined the identified papers for inclusion and extracted data from the included studies. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to compute overall estimates of treatment outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-seven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Psychological interventions may result in a reduction in end-of-treatment depression symptoms compared to controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.19, I = 88%; low certainty evidence; 10 trials; n = 1226). No effect was evident on medium-term depression symptoms one to six months after the end of treatment (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.01, I = 69%; 7 trials; n = 2654). The evidence for long-term depression symptoms and depression response was sparse for this comparison. There is low certainty evidence that psychological interventions may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.19, I = 87%; low certainty evidence; 3 trials; n = 862). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on mortality and cardiac events of psychological interventions versus control were consistently found. The evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality, and data were not reported for end-of-treatment cardiovascular mortality and occurrence of myocardial infarction for this comparison. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying psychological interventions or clinical management, the evidence regarding the effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms is very uncertain for: cognitive behavioural therapy compared to supportive stress management; behaviour therapy compared to person-centred therapy; cognitive behavioural therapy and well-being therapy compared to clinical management. There is low certainty evidence from one trial that cognitive behavioural therapy may result in little to no difference in end-of-treatment depression remission compared to supportive stress management (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.50; low certainty evidence; n = 83). Based on one to two trials per outcome, no beneficial effects on depression remission, depression response, mortality rates, and cardiac events were consistently found in head-to-head comparisons between psychological interventions or clinical management. The review suggests that pharmacological intervention may have a large effect on end-of-treatment depression symptoms (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.32, I = 90%; low certainty evidence; 8 trials; n = 750). Pharmacological interventions probably result in a moderate to large increase in depression remission (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.89, I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence; 4 trials; n = 646). We found an effect favouring pharmacological intervention versus placebo on depression response at the end of treatment, though strength of evidence was not rated (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.54, I = 62%; 5 trials; n = 891). Based on one to four trials per outcome, no beneficial effects regarding mortality and cardiac events were consistently found for pharmacological versus placebo trials, and the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. In the trials examining a head-to-head comparison of varying pharmacological agents, the evidence was very uncertain for end-of-treatment effects on depression symptoms. The evidence regarding the effects of different pharmacological agents on depression symptoms at end of treatment is very uncertain for: simvastatin versus atorvastatin; paroxetine versus fluoxetine; and escitalopram versus Bu Xin Qi. No trials were eligible for the comparison of a psychological intervention with a pharmacological intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with CAD and depression, there is low certainty evidence that psychological intervention may result in a reduction in depression symptoms at the end of treatment. There was also low certainty evidence that pharmacological interventions may result in a large reduction of depression symptoms at the end of treatment. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological intervention probably results in a moderate to large increase in depression remission at the end of treatment. Evidence on maintenance effects and the durability of these short-term findings is still missing. The evidence for our primary and secondary outcomes, apart from depression symptoms at end of treatment, is still sparse due to the low number of trials per outcome and the heterogeneity of examined populations and interventions. As psychological and pharmacological interventions can seemingly have a large to only a small or no effect on depression, there is a need for research focusing on extracting those approaches able to substantially improve depression in individuals with CAD and depression.
Topics: Adult; Coronary Artery Disease; Depression; Escitalopram; Humans; Psychotherapy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34910821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008012.pub4