Dataset Information

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of intensive-dose and standard-dose statin treatment for stroke prevention: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous study indicated that high-dose statin treatment might increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke and adverse reactions. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of intensive-dose and standard-dose statin treatment for preventing stroke in high-risk patients.

Methods

A thorough search was performed of multiple databases for publications from 1990 to June 2015. We selected the randomized clinical trials comparing standard-dose statin with placebo and intensive-dose statin with standard-dose statin or placebo for the prevention of stroke events in patients. Duplicate independent data extraction and bias assessments were performed. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model if significant heterogeneity was present.

Results

For the all stroke incidences, intensive-dose statin treatment compared with placebo treatment and standard-dose statin treatment compared with placebo treatment showed a significant 21% reduction in relative risk (RR) (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.71, 0.87], P < 0.00001) and an 18% reduction in RR (RR 0.82, 95% CI [0.73, 0.93], P = 0.002) in the subgroup without renal transplant recipients and patients undergoing regular hemodialysis separately. For the fatal stroke incidences, intensive-dose statin treatment compared with standard dose or placebo was effective reducing fatal stroke (RR 0.61, 95% CI [0.39, 0.96], P = 0.03) and the RR was 1.01 (95% CI [0.85, 1.20], P = 0.90) in standard-dose statin treatment compared with placebo.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that intensive-dose statin treatment might be more favorable for reducing the incidences of all strokes than standard-dose statin treatment, especially for patients older than 65 years in reducing the incidences of all stroke incidences.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5265930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent lipid guidelines recommend aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering in patients with coronary artery disease. To clarify the evidence for this recommendation, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared different intensities of statin therapy.MethodsWe searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registery of Controlled Trials, Web of Science) for randomized controlled trials published up to July 19, 2007, that compared statin regimens of different intensities in adults with coronary artery disease and that reported cardiovascular events or mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (OR).ResultsA total of 7 trials (29 395 patients) were included. Compared with less intensive statin regimens, more intensive regimens further reduced LDL levels (0.72 mmol/L reduction, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.84 mmol/L), and reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.91) and stroke (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95). Although there was no effect on mortality among patients with chronic coronary artery disease (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80-1.14), all-cause mortality was reduced among patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with more intensive statin regimens (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93). Compared with lower intensity regimens, more intensive regimens were associated with small absolute increases in rates of drug discontinuation (2.5%), elevated levels of aminotransferases (1%) and myopathy (0.5%), and there was no difference in noncardiovascular mortality. All 7 trials reported events by randomization arm rather than by LDL level achieved. About half of the patients treated with more intensive statin therapy did not achieve an LDL level of less than 2.0 mmol/L, and none of the trials tested combination therapies.InterpretationOur analysis supports the use of more intensive statin regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease. There is insufficient evidence to advocate treating to particular LDL targets, using combination lipid-lowering therapy to achieve these targets or for using more intensive regimens in patients without established coronary artery disease.

Project description:Currently, statins are the first-line therapies for dyslipidemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, however, their hypolipidemic effects have not been satisfactory. We performed a meta-analysis to compare lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and statin combination therapy with double-dose statin monotherapy in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Fourteen studies involving 3105 participants were included in the final analysis; 1558 (50.18%) participants received ezetimibe and statin combination therapy and 1547 (49.82%) received double-dose statin monotherapy. Eight studies reported the percentages of changes in several lipid parameters from baseline to endpoint in both groups. Lipid parameters changed more significantly in patients coadministered with ezetimibe and statin (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]: MD = -9.39, 95% CI -13.36 to -5.42; non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [non-HDL-C]: MD = -10.36, 95% CI -14.23 to -6.50; total cholesterol [TC]: MD = -8.11, 95% CI -10.95 to -5.26; and triglyceride [TG]: MD = -5.96, 95% CI -9.12 to -2.80), with moderate to high heterogeneity among the studies. Two out of fourteen studies investigated several different statins. Our subgroup analysis showed that, compared with double-dose atorvastatin monotherapy, ezetimibe and atorvastatin combination therapy significantly decreased LDL-C, non-HDL-C, TC, and TG levels by 14.16%, 14.01%, 11.06%, and 5.96%, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the incidence of laboratory-related adverse events (AEs) between statin combination therapy and monotherapy. Overall, ezetimibe and statin combination therapy significantly decreased LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and TC levels in patients with high cardiovascular risk, among which ezetimibe combined with atorvastatin had the best therapeutic effect. Compared with ezetimibe and statin combination therapy, double-dose statin monotherapy did not increase the risk of AEs.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose NOACs by performing a meta-analysis of cohort studies.BackgroundMeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) showed inferior efficacy compared with standard-dose NOACs, although they are still frequently prescribed for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the clinical practice.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE were systematically searched from the inception to September 9, 2021, for cohort studies that compared the efficacy and/or safety of low-dose NOACs in patients with AF. The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke and major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes were mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GH). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with the random-effect model.ResultsTwenty-five publications involving 487856 patients with AF were included. Compared with standard-dose NOACs, low-dose NOACs had comparable risks of ischemic stroke (HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11), major bleeding (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28), ICH (HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36), and GH (HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33), except for a higher risk of mortality (HR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.65). Compared with warfarin, low-dose NOACs were associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke (HR = 0.72, 95% CI .67 to 0.78), mortality (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.77), major bleeding (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.79), ICH (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77), and GH (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95).ConclusionsLow-dose NOACs were comparable to standard-dose NOACs considering risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, ICH, and GH, and they were superior to warfarin. Low-dose NOACs might be prescribed effectively and safely for patients with AF. Considering limitations, further well-designed prospective studies are foreseen.

Project description:To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Xingnao Kaiqiao needling method for treating acute ischemic stroke.We retrieved relevant randomized controlled trials involving Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Weipu Information Resources System, Wanfang Medical Data System, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from June 2006 to March 2016.We analyzed randomized and semi-randomized clinical controlled trials that compared Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture with various control treatments, such as conventional drugs or other acupuncture therapies, for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The quality of articles was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1), and the study was carried out using Cochrane system assessment methods. RevMan 5.2 was used for the meta-analysis of the included studies.The mortality rate, disability rate, activities of daily living (Barthel Index), and clinical efficacy were observed.Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The meta-analysis showed that between Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture and the control treatment, Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture reduced the disability rate [risk ratio (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.27-0.98, z = 2.03, P < 0.05], elevated the activities of daily living (weighted mean difference = 12.23, 95% CI: 3.66-20.08, z = 2.80, P < 0.005), and had greater clinical efficacy (RR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.23-2.09, z = 3.53, P < 0.0004). However, there was no significant difference in mortality rate (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15-2.45, z = 0.70, P > 0.05).The Xingnao Kaiqiao needling method is effective and safe for acute ischemic stroke. However, there was selective bias in this study, and the likelihood of measurement bias is high. Thus, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence of the efficacy and safety of Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.