Lone, Ahmad Naeem

Abstract Objective To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months. Main outcome measures We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke. Results We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke. Conclusions Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.

AbstractBackgroundRepresentation trends of women, older adults, and ethnic/racial minorities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of atrial fibrillation (AF) are uncertain.MethodsWe systematically reviewed 134 AF related RCTs (phase II and III) encompassing 149,162 participants using Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2019 to determine representation trends of women, older patients (≥75 years), and ethnic/racial minorities. Weighted data on the prevalence of AF from epidemiological studies were used to compare the representation of the studied groups of interest in AF RCTs to their expected burden of the disease.ResultsOnly 18.7% of the RCTs reported proportion of older patients, and 12.7% RCTs reported ethnic/racial minorities. The proportions of women in RCTs versus general population were 35.2% and 35.1%, of Hispanics were 11.9% and 5.2%, of Blacks were 1.2% and 5.7%, of American Indian/Alaskans were 0.2% and 0.2%, of Asians were 14.2% and 2.4%, of native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders were 0.05% and 0.1% and of non‐Whites were 19.5% and 22.5%, respectively. The weighted mean age (SD) across the trials was 65.3 (3.2) years which was less than the corresponding weighted mean age of 71.1 (4.5) years in the comparative epidemiological data.ConclusionThe reporting of older patients and ethnic/racial minorities was poor in RCTs of AF. The representation of women and American Indian/Alaskan natives matched their expected population share of disease burden. Hispanics and Asians were over‐represented and Blacks, native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and non‐Whites were under‐represented in RCTs of AF.

Background: Representation trends of women, older adults, and ethnic/racial minorities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of atrial fibrillation (AF) are uncertain. Methods: We systematically reviewed 134 AF related RCTs (phase II and III) encompassing 149,162 participants using Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2019 to determine representation trends of women, older patients (≥ 75 years), and ethnic/racial minorities. Weighted data on the prevalence of AF from epidemiological studies were used to compare the representation of the studied groups of interest in AF RCTs to their expected burden of the disease. Results: Only 18.7% of the RCTs reported proportion of older patients, and 12.7% RCTs reported ethnic/racial minorities. In RCTs, proportions of women, Hispanics, Blacks, American Indian/Alaskan patients, Asians, native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and non-Whites were 35.2%, 11.9%, 1.2%, 0.2%, 14.2%, 0.05%, and 19.5%, respectively. The corresponding proportions in general population were 35.1%, 5.2%, 5.7%, 0.2%, 2.4%, 0.1%, and 22.5%, respectively. The weighted mean age (SD) across the trials was 65.3 (3.2) years which was less than the corresponding weighted mean age of 71.1 (4.5) years in the comparative epidemiological data. Conclusion: The reporting of older patients and ethnic/racial minorities was poor in RCTs of AF. The representation of women and American Indian/Alaskan natives matched their expected population share of disease burden. Hispanics and Asians were over-represented and Blacks, native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and non-Whites were under-represented in RCTs of AF. In nearly all studied RCTs, the reporting of racial demographics did not start until later part of last decade.

Background The safety and efficacy of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus remains controversial. Design A meta-analysis to investigate the effects of aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Methods Ten randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases until 27 September 2018. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk differences (RDs) reported as incident events per 1000 person-years were calculated. Results In 33,679 patients, aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00, P = 0.06; RD −0.68 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −1.54, 0.17)), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83–1.09, P = 0.49; RD 0.11 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −0.80, 1.02)), myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75–1.11, P = 0.36; RD −0.66 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −2.07, 0.75)), or stroke (RR 0.91, 95% C, 0.76–1.10, P = 0.33; RD −0.55 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −1.57, 0.47)). There was a significantly higher risk of total bleeding associated with aspirin (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07–1.55, P = 0.01; RD 1.49 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI 0.36, 2.61)). Conclusion The use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus increases the risk of total bleeding without reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes.