Citations

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 Chronic inflammation is a well-established carcinogenic pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC), but the role of inflammation in CRC prognosis is not well understood. Since cytokines are central in extensive biological networks to regulate inflammation, it is of great importance to investigate inflammatory cytokines and CRC survival. Among an NCI-sponsored adjuvant chemotherapy trial for patients with stage III colon cancer conducted between 2010 and 2015 (CALGB/SWOG 80702), we collected serum samples from 1,498 participants at a median of 1.6 months (interquartile [IQR]: 1.3-1.9 months) after surgery. IL-6, TNFR2, and hsCRP were assayed as biomarkers of chronic inflammation and were categorized into quintiles. The primary outcome was disease-free survival, defined as time from randomization to recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and time to recurrence. We estimated the associations of inflammatory biomarkers with survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Of 1,498 participants (median follow-up: 5.9 years), mean age was 61.3 years, 82.2% were White, 55.5% were male, and 387 experienced recurrence or death. Medians (IQRs) of biomarkers were 2.6mg/L (1.2-5.6mg/L) for IL-6, 2.9×103pg/mL (2.3-3.6×103pg/mL) for TNFR2, and 2.6mg/L (1.2-5.6mg/L) for hsCRP. Compared to the lowest quintile (Q1), the highest quintile (Q5) in inflammatory biomarkers was significantly associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratios were 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08-2.15] for IL-6, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.22-2.54] for TNFR2, and 1.66 [95% CI, 1.17-2.35] for hsCRP). Similar patterns were observed for overall survival and time to recurrence. Our findings suggest that higher levels of inflammation after diagnosis were significantly associated with worse survival among those with stage III colon cancer, and reducing inflammation may be considered as a potential intervention to improve CRC survival. ‬‬ Associations of Inflammatory Biomarkers with Survival after Adjustment for Clinicopathologic Factors Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 P for Trend Disease-free survival IL-6 1.00 1.14 (0.80-1.62) 1.37 (0.97-1.94) 1.44 (1.02-2.03) 1.52 (1.08-2.15) 0.02 TNFR2 1.00 1.21 (0.84-1.74) 1.43 (0.99-2.05) 1.56 (1.09-2.25) 1.76 (1.22-2.54) 0.002 hsCRP 1.00 1.34 (0.95-1.90) 1.62 (1.15-2.29) 1.26 (0.88-1.80) 1.66 (1.17-2.35) 0.04 Overall survival IL-6 1.00 1.44 (0.91-2.29) 1.56 (0.98-2.48) 1.48 (0.93-2.34) 1.68 (1.07-2.65) 0.09 TNFR2 1.00 1.57 (0.94-2.63) 1.88 (1.13-3.13) 1.92 (1.15-3.20) 2.31 (1.39-3.84) 0.003 hsCRP 1.00 1.27 (0.81-2.00) 1.72 (1.11-2.65) 1.22 (0.77-1.92) 1.73 (1.12-2.69) 0.06 Time to recurrence IL-6 1.00 1.34 (0.92-1.95) 1.48 (1.01-2.16) 1.55 (1.06-2.27) 1.54 (1.05-2.26) 0.07 TNFR2 1.00 1.14 (0.78-1.67) 1.28 (0.87-1.87) 1.48 (1.01-2.16) 1.54 (1.04-2.27) 0.02 hsCRP 1.00 1.27 (0.87-1.83) 1.64 (1.14-2.36) 1.21 (0.82-1.77) 1.55 (1.07-2.26) 0.12 Citation Format: En Cheng, Shi Qian, Anthony F. Shields, Elizabeth M. Cespedes Feliciano, Andrew B. Nixon, Ardaman P. Shergill, Katherine A. Guthrie, Felix Couture, Philip Kuebler, Pankaj Kumar, Dequincy Lewis, Benjamin Tan, Eileen M. O'Reilly, Justin C. Brown, Philip A. Philip, Bette J. Caan, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt. Associations of inflammatory biomarkers with survival among patients with stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702 [Alliance]) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 682.

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.

Introduction: Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TTC) is diagnosed in 1-2% of the patients presenting with troponin positive suspected acute coronary syndromes(ACS). Rising trends of adverse events in patients with TTC, makes it imperative to explore causes and predictors of readmission in this patient population. Methods: National Readmission Data (NRD) 2013-14 was utilized to select study cohort. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9-CM) diagnostic code 429.83 was used to identify takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Admissions within 90 day of index admission were considered as early readmissions. Readmission etiologies were identified by ICD-9-CM code in primary diagnosis field of readmissions. Hierarchical multivariate models were used to evaluate predictors of early readmission. Results: A total of 12255 patients were identified during study period out of which 23.92% (n=2932 with 4224 readmissions) patients were readmitted within 90 days of discharge following index admission. Most common etiologies for readmission were cardiac (18.56%), respiratory (17.20%), GI renal (9.10%), infections (13.12%) and neurological complications (5.88%). Among cardiac complications acute heart failure was the most common etiology (7.48%). Highest number of readmissions happened on first day after discharge (n=125) and within 33 days after discharge, >50% of readmissions took place (n=2136). Conclusions: Patients with TTC are highly likely to be readmitted with first month after discharge, most likely secondary to cardiac or respiratory complications. These findings warrant close post discharge transition to reduce morbidity and improve health care outcomes.

Introduction: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction(HFpEF) is a syndromemwith limited treatment modalities. Our control over 30 day readmissions and readmission outcomes is limited. Methods: HCUP’s Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2013-14 was used for HFpEF related hospitalizations using ICD-9- CM diagnostic code:428.3x in primary diagnosis field. 30-day readmissions were identified and classified into two groups: same-hospital readmissions and different-hospital readmissions. A comparative analysis was conducted focused on three metrics - mortality, length of stay (LOS) and cost of hospitalization. We used hierarchical two-level modeling and propensity score matching to adjust for confounders. Results: Of the 94,988 readmitted patients (age >65 years: 79%, Females: 61.45%) - 76,665 (80.70%) to the same hospital and rest to different hospitals. After adjusting extensive list of confounders, same hospital readmission was associated with better outcomes including in hospital mortality (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.80, p<0.001), LOS (Days: -1.14, 95% CI: -1.31 - -0.97, p<0.001), Cost of care ($: -4208, 95% CI: - 4681 - -3734, p<0.001). For validation of our results, we ran propensity score matching, showed similar results - in hospital mortality (6.23% vs 8.07%), LOS (6.30 ± 0.08 vs 7.47 ± 0.095), Cost of care (14042.7 ± 215.7 vs 18685.4 ± 279.2). Post hoc high-risk subgroup analysis were conducted and showed similar results (Figure). Number needed to treat (for mortality) was 74 patients. Up to ~ 100 million dollars could have been saved over 2 years. Conclusions: Considering scale of problem and limited option to prevent worse outcomes, Simple interventions such as redirecting patient to same hospital as previous admission would be beneficial.

Introduction: Role of therapeutic hypothermia in out of hospital cardiac arrest is well studied but data is sparse for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Methods: Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2011-2014 was utilized to identify ICHA using the ICD-9-CM procedural codes 99.60(CPR) and 99.63(closed cardiac massage) in any procedural fields. Therapeutic hypothermia was identified by 99.81 in any procedural field. Patient with age<18 years and missing information on age, gender and mortality was removed. Primary outcome was hospitalization survival. We used Greedy’s algorithm for propensity score match (1:20) to adjust for extensive list of clinically important confounders. We used simple logistic regression to generate odds ratio on matched cohort. Results: 86,593 patients (Age>65 years: 58.48%, female: 44.12%) with In hospital cardiac arrest was identified,of which 1777 (2.05 %) received therapeutic hypothermia. Overall survival was 30%- with or without hypothermia. After propensity score matching (1:20) we identified 1537 matched pairs (32,277 patients) without any statically significant difference in baseline characteristics between two groups. C- index for the model was 0.714. Worse survival was observed in patients with hypothermia in matched cohort [Survival: (31.82% without hypothermia vs. 28.1% with hypothermia with p-value- 0.002) (OR:0.84, 95% CI:0.75-0.94, p-0.002)]. About a quarter of in-hospital cardiac arrest were Vfib/Vtach arrest and Subgroup propensity score match analysis in Vfib/Vtach arrest showed better survival without hypothermia, similar results were observed in PEA/asystole cardiac arrest. Conclusion: Worst survival was observed with hypothermia in hospital cardiac arrest patients. Risk of hypothermia complications outweighs the benefit of preserving brain in patients who received almost immediate resuscitation. Future clinical trials and prospective studies will be needed to concur our results.