LDL-lowering therapy and the risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials and 36 observational studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tan P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4830970 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe clinical benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering treatment in older patients remains debated. We aimed to summarise the evidence of LDL cholesterol lowering therapies in older patients.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles published between March 1, 2015, and Aug 14, 2020, without any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials of cardiovascular outcomes of an LDL cholesterol-lowering drug recommended by the 2018 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and data on older patients (aged ≥75 years). We excluded trials that exclusively enrolled participants with heart failure or on dialysis because guidelines do not recommend lipid-lowering therapy in such patients who do not have another indication. We extracted data for older patients using a standardised data form for aggregated study-level data. We meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for major vascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or coronary revascularisation) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.FindingsData from six articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 24 trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis plus five individual trials. Among 244 090 patients from 29 trials, 21 492 (8·8%) were aged at least 75 years, of whom 11 750 (54·7%) were from statin trials, 6209 (28·9%) from ezetimibe trials, and 3533 (16·4%) from PCSK9 inhibitor trials. Median follow-up ranged from 2·2 years to 6·0 years. LDL cholesterol lowering significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events (n=3519) in older patients by 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (RR 0·74 [95% CI 0·61-0·89]; p=0·0019), with no statistically significant difference with the risk reduction in patients younger than 75 years (0·85 [0·78-0·92]; pinteraction=0·37). Among older patients, RRs were not statistically different for statin (0·82 [0·73-0·91]) and non-statin treatment (0·67 [0·47-0·95]; pinteraction=0·64). The benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering in older patients was observed for each component of the composite, including cardiovascular death (0·85 [0·74-0·98]), myocardial infarction (0·80 [0·71-0·90]), stroke (0·73 [0·61-0·87]), and coronary revascularisation (0·80 [0·66-0·96]).InterpretationIn patients aged 75 years and older, lipid lowering was as effective in reducing cardiovascular events as it was in patients younger than 75 years. These results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of lipid-lowering therapies, including non-statin treatment, in older patients.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8015314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledAndrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a cornerstone therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). We hypothesized that cardiovascular (CV) risk is different across the various ADT modalities to compare their effects on CV morbidity and mortality, and all-cause mortality in patients with PCa. To investigate more in depth potential CV risk heterogeneity focusing on coronary (main outcome) and cerebrovascular risk, CV, and overall mortality. We performed a Medline and Embase query, without language restriction, since 1950 up to July 2014. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies providing that they compared at least 1 ADT modality to another one or to placebo and they gave data on CV event or all-cause mortality. Sixty-eight studies out of 3419 met our eligibility criteria. Eleven observational studies were analyzed. Direct meta-analyses showed that antiandrogen was associated with a 30% decrease risk for myocardial infarction (MI) compared to GnRH agonists (RR, 0.70 [0.54-0.91]); combined androgen blockade (CAB) was associated with a 10% increase risk for stroke when compared to antiandrogen (RR, 1.10 [1.02-1.19]). With regard to RCTs, 57 were included: direct meta-analyses suggested that CAB was associated with a 10% decrease of all-cause mortality when compared to GnRH agonist (RR, 0.90 [0.82-1.00]). Network analysis could only be performed for all-cause mortality and it remains difficult to disentangle benefit (positive impact on cancer survival) and risk (including CV risk). The impact of the ADT modalities on CV morbidity remains difficult to quantify and more detailed prospective collection is required.RegistrationPROSPERO, CRD42014010598.
| S-EPMC4998460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHyperinflammation and coagulopathy are hallmarks of COVID-19 and synergistically contribute to illness progression. Antiplatelet agents have been proposed as candidate drugs for COVID-19 treatment on the basis of their antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory properties. A systematic review and meta-analysis that included early observational studies and recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize and compare evidence on this issue.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify studies published up to Nov 7, 2021, and the results of registered clinical trials were followed up to Mar 30, 2022. We included RCTs and observational studies assessing the effect of antiplatelet therapy in adult patients with COVID-19. Data on baseline patient characteristics, interventions, controls, and outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included, of which 23 observational studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, and the remaining four RCTs (ACTIV-4B, RECOVERY, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP) were narratively synthesized. Based on 23 observational studies of 87,824 COVID-19 patients, antiplatelet treatment favors a lower risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.85; I 2 = 87.0%, P < 0.01]. The narrative synthesis of RCTs showed conflicting evidence, which did not support adding antiplatelet therapy to the standard care, regardless of the baseline illness severity and concomitant anticoagulation intensity.ConclusionWhile the rationale for using antiplatelet treatment in COVID-19 patients is compelling and was supported by the combined result of early observational studies, evidence from RCTs did not confirm this approach. Several factors that could explain this inconsistency were highlighted alongside perspectives on future research directions.
| S-EPMC9490267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous studies have shown that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of clinical adverse events, but we found otherwise from recent evidences. This study aims to synthesize the existing evidence evaluating safety of intraoperative hypothermia. METHODS:Articles, reviews, ongoing trials and grey literatures were retrieved from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Trails and CNKI (a Chinese national database) till February 2nd, 2019. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies compared incidences of all sorts of intra- and post-operative consequences between hypothermia and normothermia were included. Researches comparing different warming systems were excluded. We also examined risks of hypothermia using lowered standards (35.5?°C and 35?°C) from a Chinese trial (ChiCTR-IPR-17011099). RESULTS:A total of 9 RCT studies and 11 observational studies were included. RCT-synthesized results showed that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of bleeding (MD?=?131.90, 95%CI: 117.42, 146.38), surgical site infection (RD?=?0.14, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.21) and shivering (RD?=?0.32, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.58) but with no significant differences in duration of surgery, hospital stay or mortality. Observational study-synthesized evidences showed that intraoperative hypothermia did not result in higher risks in any of these adverse events. Results didn't change even if the standard of hypothermia was lowered by 0.5-1.0?°C. CONCLUSIONS:The study indicates that the synthesized risks resulted by intra-operative hypothermia might be overestimated and the eligibility of 36?°C to define hypothermia is not sensitive enough. Given body-temperature protection has not been popularized in China, it is still critical to normalize the hypothermia prevention at this stage.
| S-EPMC7429823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of the studies was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tafolecimab, a novel proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibody, in Chinese healthy volunteers and patients with hypercholesterolemia. Fifty-eight healthy volunteers (phase 1a) were randomized to receive a single dose of 25, 75, 150, 300, 450, or 600 mg tafolecimab subcutaneously, 75 or 450 mg intravenously, or placebo. Sixty patients with hypercholesterolemia (phase 1b) were randomized to receive 75 or 140 mg tafolecimab every 2 weeks, 300 or 420 mg every 4 weeks, or 450 or 600 mg every 6 weeks subcutaneously or placebo for 12 weeks. Tafolecimab was well tolerated. Adverse events in both studies were either mild or moderate. In the phase 1a study, a single dose of tafolecimab reduced low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels up to 72% in healthy volunteers. In the phase 1b study, tafolecimab reduced LDL-C levels up to 71.6% and by more than 50% consistently to week 12 for all tafolecimab dose regimens. Tafolecimab is a safe PCSK9 monoclonal antibody with significant and potential long-acting LDL-C-lowering effect. (Single Ascending Dose Study of PCSK-9 Inhibitor [IBI306] in Healthy Subjects; NCT03366688) (Multiple Ascending Dose Study of PCSK-9 Inhibitor [IBI306] in Chinese Patients With Hypercholesterolemia; NCT03815812).
| S-EPMC9627834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Existing evidence of the association between statin use and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk has been inconsistent.To maximize statistical power to synthesize prospective evidence on this relationship.PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrial.gov were systematically searched up to December 11, 2016. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate summary estimates.Our meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 63,157 subjects showed no significant association between statin use and NMSC risk (RR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.85-1.39). However, meta-analysis of four observational studies including 1,528,215 participants showed significantly increased risk of NMSC among statin users compared to non-users (RR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.02-1.22). Furthermore, ever using lipophilic statins (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.04-1.24) or lower-potency statins (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.03-1.26), as well as usage of any statin longer than one year (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.09-1.18) were significantly associated with increased NMSC risk based on observational studies.Evidence from observational studies supported an association between statin use and increased NMSC risk. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to modest number of included studies, possible between-study heterogeneity and inherent limitations of observational studies.
| S-EPMC5650431 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundStatin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials.Methods and findingsIndividual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]).ConclusionsIn 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).
| S-EPMC3261846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Previous observational studies have shown that insulin therapy may modify the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). However, these studies yielded controversial results. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine whether insulin use was associated with PCa risk in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). METHOD: A literature search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Central database between January 1966 and January 2013. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used to estimate pooled relative risks (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULT: A total of 11 (10 cohorts, and one case-control) studies published between 2007 and 2013 were included in the meta-analysis, representing data for 205,523 male subjects and 7,053 PCa cases. There were five studies investigating the influence of insulin and other glucose-lowering agents on the risk of PCa , and six studies investigating the influence of glargine and non-glargine insulin. Insulin use was not associated with PCa risk when compared with other glucose-lowering agents (RR=0.89, 95% CI, 0.72-1.09). Use of insulin glargine did not contribute to susceptibility to PCa as compared with use of non-glargine insulin (RR=1.26, 95% CI, 0.86-1.84). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of present results, since no individual study affected the pooled result significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, there may be no significant association between insulin use and risk of PCa as compared with other glucose-lowering agents in patients with DM, and there was no substantial evidence for increase risk of PCa among insulin glargine users as compared to non-glargine insulin users. Further studies are warranted to validate these conclusions.
| S-EPMC3839878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical studies have shown that statin use may alter the risk of lung cancer. However, these studies yielded different results. To quantify the association between statin use and risk of lung cancer, we performed a detailed meta-analysis. A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE database between January 1966 and November 2012. Before meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using adequate statistical tests. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were also performed. A total of 20 (five randomized controlled trials, eight cohorts, and seven case-control) studies contributed to the analysis. Pooled results indicated a non-significant decrease of total lung cancer risk among all statin users (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.78, 1.02]). Further, long-term statin use did not significantly decrease the risk of total lung cancer (RR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.39 , 1.64]). In our subgroup analyses, the results were not substantially affected by study design, participant ethnicity, or confounder adjustment. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results. The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant association between statin use and risk of lung cancer. More studies, especially randomized controlled trials and high quality cohort studies are warranted to confirm this association.
| S-EPMC3808274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo compare response to antidepressants between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials.Methods and findingsPublished and unpublished studies (from 1989 to 2009) were searched for by 2 reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, bibliographies and by mailing key organisations and researchers. RCTs and observational studies on fluoxetine or venlafaxine in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder reported in English, French or Spanish language were included in the main analysis. Studies including patients from a wider spectrum of depressive disorders (anxious depression, minor depressive episode, dysthymia) were added in a second analysis. The main outcome was the pre-/post-treatment difference on depression scales standardised to 100 (17-item or 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or Montgomery and Åsberg Rating Scale) in each study arm. A meta-regression was conducted to adjust the comparison between observational studies and RCTs on treatment type, study characteristics and average patient characteristics. 12 observational studies and 109 RCTs involving 6757 and 11035 patients in 12 and 149 arms were included in the main analysis. Meta-regression showed that the standardised treatment response in RCTs is greater by a magnitude of 4.59 (2.61 to 6.56). Study characteristics were related to standardised treatment response, positively (study duration, number of follow-up assessments, outpatients versus inpatients, per protocol analysis versus intention to treat analysis) or negatively (blinded design, placebo design). At patient level, response increased with baseline severity and decreased with age. Results of the second analysis were consistent with this.ConclusionsResponse to antidepressants is greater in RCTs than in observational studies. Observational studies should be considered as a necessary complement to RCTs.
| S-EPMC3110792 | biostudies-literature