Dataset Information

Effect of HDL-raising drugs on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-regression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Substantial residual cardiovascular risk remains after optimal LDL lowering in patients of established coronary artery disease. A number of therapeutic agents that raise HDL-C have been tested in clinical trials to cover this risk. However, the results of clinical trials are conflicting.

Objectives

To determine whether raising HDL-C with pharmacologic therapies translates into beneficial cardiovascular outcomes and to find out if this change was proportional to the percentage change in HDL levels.

Methods

Electronic and printed sources were searched up to August, 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using at least one of the HDL raising therapies for secondary prevention of adverse cardiovascular events over optimal LDL levels. Data from eligible studies were pooled for the following outcomes: all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, hospitalization for unstable angina, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization and ischemic stroke. Mantel Haensnzel fixed effect model was used preferentially. Meta-regression was done to see the correlation of change in HDL levels and cardiovascular outcomes. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs including 26,858 patients with follow up period ranging from 1 year to 6.2 years were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the treatment and control group (Pooled OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.16, p = 0.15). No significant difference was found between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Similarly no correlation was seen between percentage change in HDL and adverse cardiovascular outcomes on meta-regression analysis.

Conclusion

Increasing HDL levels via pharmacological manipulation beyond optimal lipid lowering therapy for secondary prevention is not beneficial.

SUBMITTER: Kaur N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3984171 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of HDL-raising drugs on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Kaur Navjot N Pandey Avaneesh A Negi Harish H Shafiq Nusrat N Reddy Srinivas S Kaur Harpreet H Chadha Neelima N Malhotra Samir S

PloS one 20140411 4

<h4>Background</h4>Substantial residual cardiovascular risk remains after optimal LDL lowering in patients of established coronary artery disease. A number of therapeutic agents that raise HDL-C have been tested in clinical trials to cover this risk. However, the results of clinical trials are conflicting.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether raising HDL-C with pharmacologic therapies translates into beneficial cardiovascular outcomes and to find out if this change was proportional to the perc ...[more]

PMID: 24728455

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsEligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.ResultsOf 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.ConclusionCardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of omega-3 fatty acids (FAs), such as eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids, on cardiovascular outcomes are uncertain. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of omega-3 FAs on fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes and examine the potential variability in EPA vs. EPA+DHA treatment effects.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library databases through June 7, 2021. We performed a meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials of omega-3 FAs, stratified by EPA monotherapy and EPA+DHA therapy. We estimated random-effects rate ratios (RRs) with (95% confidence intervals) and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The key outcomes of interest were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes, bleeding, and atrial fibrillation (AF). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021227580).FindingsIn 149,051 participants, omega-3 FA was associated with reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.93 [0.88-0.98]; p = 0.01), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR, 0.87 [0.81-0.93]; p = 0.0001), coronary heart disease events (CHD) (RR, 0.91 [0.87-0.96]; p = 0.0002), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR, 0.95 [0.92-0.98]; p = 0.002), and revascularization (RR, 0.91 [0.87-0.95]; p = 0.0001). The meta-analysis showed higher RR reductions with EPA monotherapy (0.82 [0.68-0.99]) than with EPA + DHA (0.94 [0.89-0.99]) for cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal MI (EPA: 0.72 [0.62-0.84]; EPA+DHA: 0.92 [0.85-1.00]), CHD events (EPA: 0.73 [0.62-0.85]; EPA+DHA: 0.94 [0.89-0.99]), as well for MACE and revascularization. Omega-3 FA increased incident AF (RR, 1.26 [1.08-1.48]). EPA monotherapy vs. control was associated with a higher risk of total bleeding (RR: 1.49 [1.20-1.84]) and AF (RR, 1.35 [1.10-1.66]).InterpretationOmega-3 FAs reduced cardiovascular mortality and improved cardiovascular outcomes. The cardiovascular risk reduction was more prominent with EPA monotherapy than with EPA+DHA.FundingNone.

Project description:Background:There is debate in the literature as to whether inclusion of a placebo arm may alter characteristics of antidepressant trials. However, previous research has focused on response rates of various antidepressants on average only, ignoring potential differences among drugs or other aspects of trial findings. Little is known about the impact of a placebo arm on all-cause dropout and dropout due to adverse events. Methods:We carried out a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression (update: January 2016). The probability of being allocated to placebo (?) was the exposure of interest, and we examined its influence on responders (efficacy), all-cause dropouts (acceptability) and dropouts due to adverse events (tolerability), while accounting for differences in drugs, trials and patient characteristics in multivariate random effects meta-regression. Results:We included 421 studies (68 305 participants) comparing 16 antidepressants or placebo; ? ranged from 20% to 50%. Response rate was lower [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 0.92] and all-cause dropout rate higher (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08, 1.31) for the same antidepressants in placebo-controlled trials compared with head-to-head trials. The probability of responding decreased by 3% (95% CI 2-5%) for every 10% increase in ?, whereas the risk of all-cause dropout increased by 4% (95% CI 1-7%). Tolerability was unaffected by ?. Response rate was inversely correlated with dropouts due to any cause (correlation coefficient -0.48; 95% CI -0.58, -0.36) and due to adverse events (-0.34; 95% CI -0.44, -0.23). Conclusions:For the same antidepressant, response rate was on average smaller and dropouts higher when placebo was included; however, no association was found with dropouts due to adverse events. Decreased patient expectations, larger dropout rates and use of inappropriate statistical methods to impute missing data may explain this phenomenon. The findings call for caution in the integration of randomized evidence involving placebo arms.

Project description:Background and objectivesSeveral clinical practice guidelines noted the potential benefits of urate-lowering therapy on cardiovascular disease and CKD progression; however, the effect of this regimen remains uncertain. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of urate-lowering therapy on major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, kidney failure events, BP, and GFR.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases for trials published through July 2020. We included prospective, randomized, controlled trials assessing the effects of urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months on cardiovascular or kidney outcomes. Relevant information was extracted into a spreadsheet by two authors independently. Treatment effects were summarized using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsWe identified 28 trials including a total of 6458 participants with 506 major adverse cardiovascular events and 266 kidney failure events. Overall urate-lowering therapy did not show benefits on major adverse cardiovascular events (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.18) and all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.39) or kidney failure (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 1.54). Nevertheless, urate-lowering therapy attenuated the decline in the slope of GFR (weighted mean difference, 1.18 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.91) and lowered the mean BP (systolic BP: weighted mean difference, -3.45 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -6.10 to -0.80; diastolic BP: weighted mean difference, -2.02 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -3.25 to -0.78). There was no significant difference (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.08) in the risk of adverse events between the participants receiving urate-lowering therapy and the control group.ConclusionsUrate-lowering therapy did not produce benefits on the clinical outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, and kidney failure. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support urate lowering in patients to improve kidney and cardiovascular outcomes.

Project description:To summarize data on long-term ipsilateral local recurrence (LR) and breast cancer death rate (BCDR) for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who received different treatments.Systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of prospective (n?=?5) and retrospective (n?=?21) studies of patients with pure DCIS and with median or mean follow-up time of ?10 years. Meta-regression was performed to assess and adjust for effects of potential confounders - the average age of women, period of initial treatment, and of bias - follow-up duration on recurrence- and death-rates in each treatment group. LR and BCDR rates by local treatment used were reported. Outside of randomized trials, remaining studies were likely to have tailored patient treatment according to the clinical situation.Nine thousand four hundred and four DCIS cases in 9391 patients with 10-year follow-up were included. The adjusted meta-regression LR rate for mastectomy was 2.6 % (95 % CI, 0.8-4.5); breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (RT), 13.6 % (95 % CI, 9.8-17.4); breast-conserving surgery without RT, 25.5 % (95 % CI, 18.1-32.9); and biopsy-only (residual predominately low-grade DCIS following inadequate excision), 27.8 % (95 % CI, 8.4-47.1). RT?+?tamoxifen (TAM) in conservation surgery (CS) patients resulted in lower LR compared to one or no adjuvant treatments: LR rate for CS?+?RT?+?TAM, 9.7 %; CS?+?RT(no TAM), 14.1 %; CS?+?TAM(no RT), 24.7 %; CS(alone), 25.1 % (linear trend for treatment P?<?0.0001). Compared to CS?+?RT?+?TAM, a significantly higher invasive LR was observed for CS(alone), odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (P?<?0.0001); CS?+?TAM(no RT), OR 2.52 (P?=?0.001); CS?+?RT(no TAM), OR 1.59 (P?=?0.022). BCDR was similar for mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery with or without RT (1.3-2.0 %) and non-significantly higher for biopsy-only (2.7 %). Additionally, the 15-year follow-up was reported where all like-studies had???15-year data sets; the biopsy-only patients had a meta-analysed total LR rate of 40.2 % and the invasive LR rate was 28.1 %. The biopsy-only patients had a???15-year BCDR (that included women with metastatic disease) of 17.9 %; the???15-year BCDR was 55.2 % for those with invasive LR.More local intervention was associated with greater local control for patients with DCIS at long-term follow-up. For patients undergoing breast-conservation, invasive LR was significantly lower when two rather than one adjuvant treatment modalities were given.

Dataset Information

Effect of HDL-raising drugs on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of HDL-raising drugs on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets