Dataset Information

Statins in the treatment of chronic heart failure: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy of statin therapy in patients with established chronic heart failure (CHF) is a subject of much debate.

Methods and findings

We conducted three systematic literature searches to assess the evidence supporting the prescription of statins in CHF. First, we investigated the participation of CHF patients in randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials designed to evaluate the efficacy of statins in reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality. Second, we assessed the association between serum cholesterol and outcome in CHF. Finally, we evaluated the ability of statin treatment to modify surrogate endpoint parameters in CHF. Using validated search strategies, we systematically searched PubMed for our three queries. In addition, we searched the reference lists from eligible studies, used the "see related articles" feature for key publications in PubMed, consulted the Cochrane Library, and searched the ISI Web of Knowledge for papers citing key publications. Search 1 resulted in the retrieval of 47 placebo-controlled clinical statin trials involving more than 100,000 patients. CHF patients had, however, been systematically excluded from these trials. Search 2 resulted in the retrieval of eight studies assessing the relationship between cholesterol levels and outcome in CHF patients. Lower serum cholesterol was consistently associated with increased mortality. Search 3 resulted in the retrieval of 18 studies on the efficacy of statin treatment in CHF. On the whole, these studies reported favorable outcomes for almost all surrogate endpoints.

Conclusions

Since CHF patients have been systematically excluded from randomized, controlled clinical cholesterol-lowering trials, the effect of statin therapy in these patients remains to be established. Currently, two large, randomized, placebo-controlled statin trials are under way to evaluate the efficacy of statin treatment in terms of reducing clinical endpoints in CHF patients in particular.

SUBMITTER: van der Harst P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1551909 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveExplore the interaction between patient experienced symptoms and burden of treatment (BoT) theory in chronic heart failure (CHF). BoT explains how dynamic patient workload (self-care) and their capacity (elements influencing capability), impacts on patients' experience of illness.DesignReview of qualitative research studies.Data sourcesCINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science were searched between January 2007 and 2020.Eligibility criteriaJournal articles in English, reporting qualitative studies on lived experience of CHF.Results35 articles identified related to the lived experience of 720 patients with CHF. Symptoms with physical and emotional characteristics were identified with breathlessness, weakness, despair and anxiety most prevalent. Identifying symptoms' interaction with BoT framework identified three themes: (1) Symptoms appear to infrequently drive patients to engage in self-care (9.2% of codes), (2) symptoms appear to impede (70.5% of codes) and (3) symptoms form barriers to self-care engagement (20.3% of codes). Symptoms increase illness workload, making completing tasks more difficult; simultaneously, symptoms alter a patient's capacity, through a reduction in their individual capabilities and willingness to access external resources (ie, hospitals) often with devasting impact on patients' lives.ConclusionsSymptoms appear to be integral in the patient experience of CHF and BoT, predominately acting to impede patients' efforts to engage in self-care. Symptoms alter illness workload, increasing complexity and hardship. Patients' capacity is reduced by symptoms, in what they can do and their willingness to ask for help. Symptoms can lower their perceived self-value and roles within society. Symptoms appear to erode a patient's agency, decreasing self-value and generalised physical deconditioning leading to affective paralysis towards self-care regimens. Together describing a state of overwhelming BoT which is thought to be a contributor to poor engagement in self-care and may provide new insights into the perceived poor adherence to self-care in the CHF population.Prospero registration numberCRD42017077487.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources -- especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development -- the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS: A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. RESULTS: Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. CONCLUSION: The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines.