-
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 -
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 -
Central European Journal of Urology 2021The clinical effect of pharmacotherapy on prostate morphometric parameters is largely unknown. The sole exception is 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARI) that reduce...
The effect of pharmacotherapy on prostate volume, prostate perfusion and prostate-specific antigen (prostate morphometric parameters) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic obstruction. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The clinical effect of pharmacotherapy on prostate morphometric parameters is largely unknown. The sole exception is 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARI) that reduce prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). This review assesses the effect of pharmacotherapy on prostate parameters effect on prostate parameters, namely total prostate volume (TPV), transitional zone volume (TZV), PSA and prostate perfusion.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on morphometric parameters' changes after pharmacotherapy, as primary or secondary outcomes. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RCTs' quality was assessed by the Cochrane tool and the criteria of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The effect magnitude was expressed as standard mean difference (SMD). The study protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD42020170172).
RESULTS
Sixty-seven RCTs were included in the review and 18 in the meta-analysis. The changes after alpha-blockers are comparable to placebo. Long-term studies reporting significant changes from baseline, result from physiologic growth. Finasteride and dutasteride demonstrated large effect sizes in TPV reduction ([SMD]: -1.15 (95% CI: -1.26 to -1.04, p <0.001, and [SMD]:-0.66 (95% CI: -0.83 to -0.49, p <0.001, respectively), and similar PSA reductions. Dutasteride's effect appears earlier (1 vs 3 month), the changes reach a maximum at month 12 and are sustained thereafter. Phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors have no effect on morphometric parameters. Phytotherapy's effect on TPV is non-significant [SMD]: 0.12 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.27, p = 0.13). Atorvastatin reduces TPV as compared to placebo (-11.7% vs +2.5%, p <0.01). Co-administration of testosterone with dutasteride spares the prostate from the androgenic stimulation as both TPV and PSA are reduced significantly.
CONCLUSIONS
The 5-ARIs show large effect size in reducing TPV and PSA. Tamsulosin improves perfusion but no other effect is evident. PDE-5 inhibitors and phytotherapy do not affect morphometric parameters. Atorvastatin reduces TPV and PSA as opposed to testosterone supplementation.
PubMed: 34729231
DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2021.132.R1 -
Cureus Sep 20213-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors are commonly used drugs in the management of elevated lipid levels and cardiovascular disease. In... (Review)
Review
3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors are commonly used drugs in the management of elevated lipid levels and cardiovascular disease. In cardiovascular diseases, among other common chronic conditions, inflammatory biomarkers are used to monitor disease progression and the risk of recurrent adverse events. We explored whether or not there was a positive effect on these biomarkers using HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The systematic review was conducted by gathering relevant papers mainly from three databases, identified through a generated Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) strategy. Identification of papers was subsequently followed by applying a selected inclusion and exclusion criteria to narrow the papers chosen for review. Post the application of stipulated criteria, 12 papers remained. They were subsequently assessed for risk of bias using a Cochrane risk analysis tool, identifying most as having some concerns of bias or low risk of bias. We found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors exhibit both a lipid-lowering effect addition to an anti-inflammatory effect.
PubMed: 34722051
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.18273 -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2021The aim of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of locally delivered statins used in adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP), compared with SRP alone. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of locally delivered statins used in adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP), compared with SRP alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic and hand search was carried out up to April 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Clinical attachment level gain (CALgain) and probing depth reduction (PDred), modified sulcular bleeding index reduction (mSBIred), and intrabony defect reduction (IBDred) were the investigated outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed, and the power of the meta-analytic findings was determined by trial sequential analysis (TSA). Studies were also sub-grouped based on the type of statin used. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs were included (1212 patients, 1289 defects). An overall statistically significant effect size in favor of statins for CALgain and PDred was found. As opposed to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, simvastatin did not reach statistical significance for these outcomes, as shown by the sub-group analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of the available studies, the local administration of statins (in particular, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) in adjunct to SRP may result in additional significant improvement in terms of CALgain and PDred compared with SRP alone. The high heterogeneity of data and the high risk of bias found, however, impose caution. No approved preparations, moreover, exist, and further well-designed RCTs from independent research centers are needed to confirm the beneficial effects of the different statins and their mutual differences in the non-surgical periodontal treatment.
Topics: Chronic Periodontitis; Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Scaling; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Planing; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34604965
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202109_26792 -
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and... Jul 2022Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder and the most prevalent cause of dementia. In spite of the urgent need for more effective AD drug therapy...
IMPORTANCE
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder and the most prevalent cause of dementia. In spite of the urgent need for more effective AD drug therapy strategies, evidence of the efficacy of combination therapy with existing drugs remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of combined drug therapy on cognition and progress in patients with AD in comparison to single agent drug therapy.
METHODS
The electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included, but no limits were applied to language or time published. Data were extracted from May 27th until December 29th, 2020.
RESULTS
Three trials found that a combination of ChEI with additional memantine provides a slight benefit for patients with moderate to severe AD over ChEI monotherapy and placebo. However, a further 4 trials could not replicate this effect. One trial reported benefits of add-on in donepezil-treated patients with moderate AD (using a formula containing Gingko and other antioxidants) compared to donepezil with placebo. A further trial found no significant effect of combining EGb 761® and donepezil in patients with probable AD over donepezil with placebo. Approaches with idalopirdine, atorvastatin or vitamin supplementation in combination with ChEI have not proven effective and have not been retried since. Fluoxetine and ST101 have shown partial benefits in combination with ChEI over ChEI monotherapy and placebo. However, these effects must be replicated by further research.
CONCLUSION
Additional memantine in combination with ChEI might be of slight benefit in patients with moderate to severe AD, but evidence is ambiguous. Longer trials are needed. No major cognitive benefit is missed, if solely appropriate ChEI monotherapy is initiated.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Donepezil; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Piperidines
PubMed: 34476990
DOI: 10.1177/08919887211044746 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2021Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a common clinical cardiovascular disease, and its morbidity and mortality rates are increasing, which brings a serious burden to the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a common clinical cardiovascular disease, and its morbidity and mortality rates are increasing, which brings a serious burden to the family and society. Dyslipidemia is one of the most important risk factors for CHD. However, it is difficult to reduce blood lipids to an ideal state with the administration of a statin alone. Tongxinluo capsule (TXLC), as a Chinese patent medicine, has received extensive attention in the treatment of CHD in recent years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide evidence-based medicine for TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate systematically the effectiveness and safety of TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD.
METHODS
Seven English and Chinese electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and Wanfang) were searched from inception to January 2020, to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed quality assessment and data extraction on the included RCTs. We performed a systematic review following Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR 2). The quality of outcomes was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). And meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.2.
RESULTS
A total of 15 RCTs with 1,578 participants were included in this review. Compared to atorvastatin treatment, TXLC combined with atorvastatin treatment showed potent efficacy when it came to the effectiveness of clinical treatment (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.29; < 0.00001), total cholesterol (TC; MD = -1.21; 95% CI, -1.53, -0.89; < 0.00001), triacylglycerol (TG; MD = -0.73; 95% CI, -0.81, -0.65; < 0.00001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C; MD = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.31; < 0.00001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; MD = -0.72; 95% CI, -0.80, -0.64; < 0.00001), C-reactive protein (CRP; SMD = -2.06; 95% CI, -2.56, -1.57; < 0.00001), frequency of angina pectoris (SMD = -1.41; 95% CI, -1.97, -0.85; < 0.00001), duration of angina pectoris (MD = -2.30; 95% CI, -3.39, -1.21; < 0.0001), and adverse reactions (RR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.51, 1.39; =0.50). No serious adverse events or reactions were mentioned in these RCTs. According to the PRISMA guidelines, although all studies were not fully reported in accordance with the checklist item, the reported items exceeded 80% of all items. With the AMSTAR 2 standard, the methodological quality assessment found that 9 studies were rated low quality and 6 studies were rated critically low quality. Based on the results of the systematic review, the GRADE system recommended ranking method was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and the recommendation level. The results showed that the level of evidence was low, and the recommendation intensity was a weak recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS
TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD can effectively improve the effectiveness of clinical treatment, significantly reduce the frequency and duration of angina pectoris, decrease blood lipids, and improve inflammatory factors. However, due to the low quality of the literature included in these studies and the variability of the evaluation methods of each study, there is still a need for a more high-quality, large sample, multicenter clinical randomized control for further demonstration.
PubMed: 34335841
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9413704 -
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2021Several pharmacological treatments have been used to treat patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), although little is known about the comparative effectiveness...
Several pharmacological treatments have been used to treat patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), although little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different classes of medication. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of five drug regimens to determine the best treatment for this group of patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov, the Cochrane database, and Embase to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing drug treatments in adult patients with CSDH. A network meta-analysis was conducted using a Bayesian framework. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to pool the network results, and the preferred model was selected by comparing the deviance information criteria (DIC). Efficacy outcomes included recurrence requiring surgery, changes in hematoma volume, and a good recovery. The safety outcomes were treatment-related adverse events and all-cause mortality. In this Bayesian network meta-analysis, available data were obtained from 12 eligible trials, including 2,098 patients and 5 techniques. Compared to placebo, atorvastatin (RR: 0.45, 95% CrI: 0.24-0.81) and dexamethasone (RR: 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.22-0.63) were similarly effective in reducing recurrence requiring surgery by 55% and 62%, respectively. Dexamethasone (RR: 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.23-0.91) was more effective in reducing recurrence requiring surgery than goreisan. Additionally, atorvastatin reduced the hematoma volume to a greater extent than placebo (MD: -7.44, 95% CrI: -9.49 to -5.43) or goreisan (MD: -14.09, 95% CrI: -23.35 to -4.82). Moreover, tranexamic acid (MD: -12.07, 95% CrI: -21.68 to -2.29) reduced the hematoma volume to a greater extent than goreisan. No significant differences were detected between drugs and placebo with regard to a good recovery. In terms of safety, dexamethasone (RR: 1.96, 95% CrI: 1.20-3.28) increased the risk of mortality compared to placebo. These findings suggest that dexamethasone is the best treatment to reduce recurrence and atorvastatin is the best treatment to reduce hematoma volume in patients with CSDH. However, clinicians should pay close attention to the elevated risk of all-cause mortality and potential adverse events caused by dexamethasone. Future well-designed RCTs with more participants are needed to verify these findings. http://osf.io/u9hqp.
PubMed: 34276343
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.684501 -
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 -
International Journal of Preventive... 2021Cardiovascular diseases impose a burden of disease and economic burden on society. With regard to different drugs are used to treat cardiovascular disease; these... (Review)
Review
Cardiovascular diseases impose a burden of disease and economic burden on society. With regard to different drugs are used to treat cardiovascular disease; these interventions should be economically evaluated and them that the most cost-effective were selected. The aim of this study was to investigate the studies carried on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of statin drugs for the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease between 2004 and 2020. Quality assessment of the articles was examined by Drummond's checklist. Given that the inclusion criteria, 26 articles included in the review. The results of this review showed that many articles related to the economic evaluation of statin drugs adhered international standards for performing economic evaluation studies. All the studies mentioned the source of effectiveness (the second criteria) and alternative options for the comparison (the third criteria). Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin drugs were the main options for the comparison in the studies. Although the results of the studies were different in some aspects, such as the type of modeling, costs items and the study perspective, they reached the same results which the use of statin drugs versus no-drug can decrease cost, cardiovascular events and deaths and increase QALY. The results were nearly different due to study design, time horizon, efficacy, and drug prices.
PubMed: 34249288
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_125_20