Krasuski, Richard A.

Background: RCTs studying the effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and outcomes have been underpowered to assess patients with overweight or obesity, thus presenting the need for a meta-analysis. Methods: Electronic databases were queried up till February 2022 for RCTs comparing SGLT2i with placebo in patients with overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) or obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) - irrespective of diabetes status - with a follow-up of ≥24 weeks. Meta-analyses were performed using the generic inverse variance technique and a random-effects model. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes. Outcomes studied were: (i) weight; (ii) systolic BP; (iii) diastolic BP; (iv) heart rate; (v) HDL-C; (vi) LDL-C; (vii) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), i.e., composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal stroke; (viii) composite of heart failure hospitalization and CV death (HFH/CV death); (ix) mortality; (x) MI; and (xi) stroke. Results: Seventeen RCTs (47,649 patients) were included. Compared with placebo, SGLT2i significantly reduced weight (WMD: -2.32 kg [-2.77, -1.88]), HbA1c (WMD: -0.79 % [-0.98, - 0.61]) and systolic BP (WMD: -2.15 mm Hg [-3.08, - 1.22]). SGLT2i did not have a significant effect on diastolic BP (WMD: -0.55 mmHg [-1.51, 0.41]), heart rate (WMD: 0.08 bpm. [-0.21, 0.37]), HDL-C (WMD: 1.62 mmol l -1 [-0.21, 3.45]) or LDL-C (WMD: 0.53 mmol l -1 [-0.88, 1.94]). Amongst CV outcomes, SGLT2i reduced the risk of MACE (HR: 0.90 [0.81, 0.99]), HFH/CV death (HR: 0.82 [0.75, 0.90]), and mortality (HR: 0.85 [0.77, 0.94]). No effect was noted on stroke (HR: 0.99 [0.85, 1.26]) or MI (HR: 0.89 [0.77, 1.02]). Conclusions: In patients with overweight or obesity, SGLT2i produce a modest but significant reduction in weight, systolic BP and HbA1c. SGLT2i may also reduce the risk of MACE, HFH/CV death, and mortality.

Background: Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI. Methods and Results: We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals ( The Lancet , New England Journal of Medicine , Journal of the American Medical Association , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal ). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5–26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7–52; P =0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P =0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12–53.25; P =0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year. Conclusions: Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.

Background: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. Methods and Results: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and European Heart Journal ) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%–57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%–85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%–12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%–47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%–2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%–67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%–60%) reported harms or adverse effects. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

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.

Background Data about anticoagulation in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients are inconsistent. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of adjunctive oral anticoagulants in patients with PAH through meta-analysis, and to further assess whether response differs by PAH subtype. Methods and Results Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized or nonrandomized studies that assessed the association between anticoagulation and outcomes in patients with PAH. Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were pooled using the random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of PAH and study design. Twelve nonrandomized studies, at moderate risk of bias, were included. These consisted of 2512 patients (1342 receiving anticoagulation and 1170 controls). Anticoagulation significantly reduced mortality in the overall PAH cohort (HR, 0.73 [0.57, 0.93]; P =0.001; I 2 =64%). On subgroup analysis, a significant mortality reduction was seen in idiopathic PAH patients (HR, 0.73 [0.56, 0.95]; P =0.02; I 2 =46%), whereas no significant difference was observed in connective tissue disease–related PAH (HR, 1.16 [0.58, 2.32]; P =0.67; I 2 =71%). Sensitivity analysis specific to scleroderma-associated PAH demonstrated a significant increase in mortality with anticoagulant use (HR, 1.58 [1.08, 2.31]; P =0.02; I 2 =9%). Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that use of anticoagulation may improve survival in idiopathic PAH patients, while increasing mortality when used in scleroderma-associated-PAH patients. Currently, no randomized clinical trials have been published, and until randomized data are available, anticoagulant use in PAH should be tailored to PAH subtype.

Background The comparative effects of statins, ezetimibe with or without statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors remain unassessed. Design Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment groups. Methods Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (inception – September 2017). Results In network meta-analysis of 189,116 patients, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the best treatment for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (Surface Under Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA), 85%), myocardial infarction (SUCRA, 84%) and stroke (SUCRA, 80%). PCSK9 inhibitors reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with ezetimibe + statin (odds ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.55–0.95; Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria: moderate), statin (OR: 0.78; 95% CrI: 0.62–0.97; GRADE: moderate) and placebo (OR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.49–0.79; GRADE: high). The PCSK9 inhibitors were consistently superior to groups for major adverse cardiovascular event reduction in secondary prevention trials (SUCRA, 95%). Statins had the highest probability of having lowest rates of all-cause mortality (SUCRA, 82%) and cardiovascular mortality (SUCRA, 84%). Compared with placebo, statins reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88; 95% CrI: 0.83–0.94; GRADE: moderate) and cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.84; 95% CrI: 0.77–0.90; GRADE: high). For cardiovascular mortality, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the second best treatment (SUCRA, 78%) followed by ezetimibe + statin (SUCRA, 50%). Conclusion PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction and stroke, without having major safety concerns. Statins were ranked as the most effective therapy for reducing mortality.