Vandvik, Per Olav

Objective To determine the harms of ezetimibe in people who need lipid-lowering treatment. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies comparing ezetimibe with placebo, standard care, or other lipid-lowering agents in people who need lipid-lowering treatment with a follow-up duration of at least six months (or 24 weeks). The relative effects for potential harms of ezetimibe were pooled by use of random effect pairwise meta-analyses for randomised controlled trials and the evidence from observational studies was narratively summarised. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results 48 randomised controlled trials with 28 444 participants (median follow-up 34 weeks, range 24-312 weeks) and four observational studies with 1667 participants (median follow-up 282 weeks, range 72-400 weeks) were included. The meta-analyses of randomised trials showed moderate to high certainty that ezetimibe was not associated with cancer (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.11), fractures (0.90; 0.74 to 1.10), discontinuation due to any adverse event (0.87; 0.74 to 1.03), gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.34; 0.58 to 3.08), myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation (0.82; 0.51 to 1.33), neurocognitive events (1.48; 0.58 to 3.81), or new-onset diabetes (0.88; 0.61 to 1.28). The narrative analysis of observational studies provided consistent findings. No credible subgroup effects were identified for the harm outcomes, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials. Conclusions Ezetimibe results in little to no difference in adverse events or other undesirable effects compared with placebo, usual care or other lipid-lowering agents. Review registration PROSPERO CRD42020187437.

Abstract Clinical question In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Current practice Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients’ values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. Recommendations The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. How this guideline was created An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults’ average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform ( www.magicapp.org ) that also allows re-use and adaptation. The evidence A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/ . Understanding the recommendations The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient’s risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients’ cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms. Because of the anticipated large variability of patients’ values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit. The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

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.

Objective To determine the harms of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in people who need lipid-lowering therapy. Methods This systematic review included randomised controlled trials that compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo, standard care or active lipid-lowering comparators in people who need lipid-lowering therapy with the follow-up duration of at least 24 weeks. We summarised the relative effects for potential harms from PCSK9 inhibitors using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for each outcome. Results We included 32 trials with 65 861 participants (with the median follow-up duration of 40 weeks, ranging from 24 to 146 weeks). The meta-analysis showed an incidence of injection-site reaction leading to discontinuation (absolute incidence of 15 events (95% CI 11 to 20) per 1000 persons in a 5-year time frame, high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors do not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus, neurocognitive events, cataracts or gastrointestinal haemorrhage with high certainty evidence. PCSK9 inhibitors probably do not increase the risks of myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation or any adverse events leading to discontinuation with moderate evidence certainty. Given very limited evidence, PCSK9 inhibitors might not increase influenza-like symptoms leading to discontinuation (risk ratio 1.5; 95% CI 0.06 to 36.58). We did not identify credible subgroup analyses results, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials. Conclusions PCSK9 inhibitors slightly increase the risk of severe injection-site reaction but not cataracts, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, neurocognitive events, new-onset diabetes or severe myalgia or muscular pain.

2054 Background: Systematic reviews that summarize the toxicity of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) become outdated very soon after publication. Therefore, we reported results of a toxicity meta-analysis at 2019 ASCO meeting and informed the intent to create a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs combine human and machine effort and support rapid evidence synthesis and living clinical practice guidelines. Now, we report our experience maintaining a LSR on toxicity of ICIs. Methods: Steps include quarterly literature searches to identify new clinical trials reporting ICI-associated adverse events (AEs), AI-enabled screening of new citations which meet the inclusion criteria, automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform. Standard data formats and protocols were designed for inputting text, tables and graphics. Software was written to interpret these data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot and summary tables. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs and displays the associated output was designed. Results: The LSR is continuously updated incorporating toxicity data from new clinical trials as it becomes available. We have screened 8000 relevant citations and summarized the odds of Grade 3 or higher AEs and AEs of special interest in patient receiving ICIs. The results are updated on quarterly basis and are available online. The results are updated on quarterly basis and will be available on a website at the time of publication. Prototype with dummy data is available at this link . This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables and forest plots by type of cancer, name or mechanism (PD-1 or PD-L1) of ICI agent, single agent or combination, type of control arm, line of treatment and several other clinically relevant filters. For example, a user can instantaneously generate a meta-analysis summarizing the risk of colitis or pneumonitis in metastatic lung cancer trials with pembrolizmuab. Conclusions: This LSR engine can prospectively synthesize toxicity data from ICI trials in an efficient manner providing accurate and timely information for advanced clinical decision support at point-of-care. Efforts are ongoing to improve efficiency of screening, improve AI-enabled processes for automated screening and data abstraction, and test across multiple clinical questions.

Introduction UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. Objectives Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. Design Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. Methods We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. Results UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. Conclusion The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations—in UpToDate and elsewhere—when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.

Background Although decision aids (DA) can help to communicate evidence to patients, their production is time consuming, often not based on the best available evidence or rapidly outdated. Linking trustworthy guidelines and DA for shared-decision making could both overcome these limitations and enhance guideline dissemination. Objectives To test the feasibility of automatically translating any recommendations from GRADE guidelines into generic and interactive DA accessible on tablet computers for clinicians and their patients in the clinical encounter. Methods As part of the DECIDE project, we developed a framework for translating components of GRADE into DA, following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Using a recently published guideline, we implemented that framework in our MAGIC (Making Grade the Irresistible Choice) application – a prototype electronic guideline tool and publication platform that can automatically display recommendations in multilayered presentation formats. Results Our prototype was able to automatically translate a large number of GRADE recommendations and their supporting evidence into electronic and interactive DA. Preliminary results of user-testing in real patient-clinician interactions suggest that these DA can be used at the point of care to discuss estimates of treatment effects for patient relevant outcomes, confidence in estimates, burden of treatment, and cost issues. Discussion This study provides a proof-of-concept that components of GRADE recommendations can be interactively displayed in generic tools for interactive shared-decision making in a wide range of treatment alternatives. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users Our electronic DA offer promising opportunities to disseminate guidelines at the point of care.

Background Traditionally patients are not involved in the development of clinical guidelines, and most current panels include only clinical and methodological experts. We therefore know little about what patients (or healthy lay people) would have recommended if they were provided with the same evidence as experts. Objectives Develop a prototype ‘Recommendation-making game’ which can be used for: (1) Exploring patients and lay people’s reasoning when facing the same evidence as an expert guideline panel; (2) assess whether they give similar value to the outcomes or burdens if the decision of making a recommendation for a patient group was up to them; (3) determine whether their recommendation concur with what they would have decided for themselves. Methods We used game technology to make a generic prototype of an online “Recommendation-making game”, based on structured guidelines published in the MAGIC (Making Grade the Irresistible Choice) application. This approach will enable us to automatically make online surveys out of any guideline/recommendation in the system. In making it into a game we believe people would want to participate, and we can potentially harvest information from a large group of people. The game can also be used in small focus groups for qualitative data collection. Results We will display the prototype at the conference. Discussion Does clinical experts reasoning effects that of patient representatives in a guideline panel? Implications for Guideline Developers/Users GAME-IT explores a new way of harvesting information from patients (or healthy lay people) regarding treatment recommendations.