Lipid-Lowering Efficacy of Ezetimibe in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shaya FT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7266788 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Lipid-Lowering Efficacy of Ezetimibe in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.
Shaya Fadia Tohme FT Sing Krystal K Milam Robert R Husain Fasahath F Del Aguila Michael A MA Patel Miraj Y MY
American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions 20200601 3
<h4>Introduction</h4>Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), especially those with recent (< 1 year) acute coronary syndrome (ACS), are at high risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. This risk can be reduced by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. A comprehensive meta-analysis on the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe is lacking. This study attempts to address this gap.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trial ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality with incidence rates of 5-10 per 1000 person-years, according to primary prevention studies. To control hyperlipidemia-a major risk factor of cardiovascular disease-initiation of lipid-lowering therapy with therapeutic lifestyle modification or lipid-lowering agent is recommended. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses are available on lipid-lowering therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. In addition, the operational definitions of intensive lipid-lowering therapies are heterogeneous. The aim of our study was to investigate whether intensive lipid-lowering therapies reduce greater cardiovascular disease risks in primary prevention settings.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2019 for randomized controlled trials. We used random effects model for overall pooled risk ratio (RR) estimation with cardiovascular events of interest and all-cause mortality rate for the intensive lipid-lowering group using the standard lipid-lowering group as the reference. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for quality assessment.ResultsA total of 18 randomized controlled trials were included. The risk reductions in cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality associated with more intensive vs. standard lipid-lowering therapy across all trials were 24 and 10%, respectively (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.85; RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.97); however, the risk reduction varied by baseline LDL-C level in the trial. A greater risk reduction was noted with higher LDL-C level. Intensive lipid-lowering for coronary heart disease protection was more pronounced in the non-diabetic populations than in the diabetic populations.ConclusionsMore intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in risk of total and cardiovascular mortality in trials of patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels than less intensive LDL-C lowering. Intensive lipid-lowering was associated with a significant risk reduction of coronary heart disease and must be considered even in the non-diabetic populations.
| S-EPMC7359015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In addition to statin therapy, Ezetimibe, a non-statin lipid-modifying agent, is increasingly used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Literature suggests the clinical effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin (EPS) therapy; however, primary evidence on its economic effectiveness is inconsistent. Hence, we pooled incremental net benefit to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of EPS therapy. We identified economic evaluation studies reporting outcomes of EPS therapy compared with other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled Incremental Net Benefit (INB) in the US $ with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and GRADE quality assessment for quality appraisal. The pooled INB from twenty-one eligible studies showed that EPS therapy was significantly cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo. The pooled INB (95% CI) was $4,274 (621 to 7,927), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 84.21). On subgroup analysis EPS therapy is significantly cost-effective in high-income countries [$4,356 (621 to 8,092)], for primary prevention [$4,814 (2,523 to 7,106)], and for payers’ perspective [$3,255 (571 to 5,939)], and from lifetime horizon [$4,571 (746 to 8,395)]. EPS therapy is cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo in high-income countries and for primary prevention. However, there is a dearth of evidence from lower-middle-income countries and the societal perspective.
| S-EPMC9202874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the lipid-lowering/increasing effects of 7 different statins in patients with dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus by conducting systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) of the lipid changes after certain statins' use.MethodsIn this study, we searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through February 25, 2020, comparing the lipid-lowering efficacy of no less than two of the included statins (or statin vs. placebo). Three reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Firstly, mixed treatment overall comparison analyses, in the form of frequentist NMAs, were conducted using STATA 15.0 software. Then, subgroup analyses were conducted according to different baseline diseases. At last, sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration. The trial was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42018108799).ResultsAs a result, seven statin monotherapy treatments in 50 studies (51956 participants) were used for the analyses. The statins included simvastatin (SIM), fluvastatin (FLU), atorvastatin (ATO), rosuvastatin (ROS), lovastatin (LOV), pravastatin (PRA), and pitavastatin (PIT). In terms of LDL-C lowering, rosuvastatin ranked 1st with a surface under cumulated ranking (SUCRA) value of 93.1%. The comparative treatment efficacy for LDL-C lowering was ROS>ATO>PIT>SIM>PRA>FLU>LOV>PLA. All of the other ranking and NMA results were reported in SUCRA plots and league tables.ConclusionsAccording to the NMAs, it can be concluded that rosuvastatin ranked 1st in LDL-C, ApoB-lowering efficacy and ApoA1-increasing efficacy. Lovastatin ranked 1st in TC- and TG-lowering efficacy, and fluvastatin ranked 1st in HDL-C-increasing efficacy. The results should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations in our review. However, they can provide references and evidence-based foundation for drug selection in both statin monotherapies and statin combination therapies.
| S-EPMC7201823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe effect of therapeutic lowering of apolipoprotein B (apoB) on mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. It is also unclear whether these potential effects vary by different lipid-lowering strategies.MethodsA total of 29 randomized controlled trials were selected using PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE through 2018. We selected trials of therapies which ultimately clear apolipoprotein B particles by upregulating low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDL-R) expression (statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, bile acid sequestrants) or therapies which reduce apolipoprotein B independent of LDL-R (cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, fibrates, niacin, omega-3 fatty acids) with sample size of ≥1000 patients and follow-up of ≥1 year. The meta-regression and meta-analyses were constructed using a random effects model.ResultsIn 332,912 patients, meta-regression analyses showed relative risks of 0.95 for all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval 0.92-0.99) and 0.93 (0.88-0.98) for cardiovascular mortality for every 10 mg/dL decrease in apolipoprotein B by all interventions combined. Reduction in all-cause mortality was limited to statins (0.92 (0.86-0.98)). For MACE, the relative risk per 10 mg/dL reduction in apolipoprotein B was 0.93 (0.90-0.97) for all therapies combined, with both statin (0.88 (0.83-0.93)) and non-statin therapies (0.96 (0.94-0.99)). which clear apolipoprotein B by upregulating LDL-R showing significant reductions; whereas interventions which lower apolipoprotein B independent of LDL-R did not demonstrate this effect (1.02 (0.81-1.30)).ConclusionWhile both statin and established non-statin therapies (PCSK9 inhibitor and ezetimibe) reduced cardiovascular risk per decrease in apolipoprotein B, interventions which reduce apolipoprotein B independently of LDL-R were not associated with cardiovascular benefit.
| S-EPMC7489462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is one of the key strategies for reducing the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) burden. However, little is known about the percentage of people in need of different LLT regimens to achieve optimal targets of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and the corresponding cost and benefit.MethodsWe conducted a simulation study based on the data from the nationwide China PEACE MPP population cohort (2015-2020), from which we included 2,904,914 participants aged 35-75 years from all the 31 provinces in mainland China. Participants were grouped based on their 10-year ASCVD risks, then entered into a Monte Carlo model which was used to perform LLT intensification simulation scenarios to achieve corresponding LDL-C goals in each risk stratification.ResultsAfter standardizing age and sex, the proportions of participants included at low, moderate, high, and very-high risk were 70.8%, 15.6%, 11.5%, and 2.1%, respectively. People who failed to achieve the corresponding LDL-C goals -8.1% at low risk, 19.6% at moderate risk, 53.2% at high risk, and 93.6% at very-high risk (either not achieving the goal or not receiving LLT)-would be in need of the LLT intensification simulation. After the use of atorvastatin 20 mg was simulated, over 99% of the population at low or moderate risk could achieve the LDL-C goals; while 11.3% at high and 24.5% at very-high risk would still require additional non-statin therapy. After the additional use of ezetimibe, there were still 4.8% at high risk and 11.3% at very-high risk in need of evolocumab; and 99% of these two groups could achieve the LDL-C goals after the use of evolocumab. Such LLT intensification with statin, ezetimibe, and evolocumab would annually cost $2.4 billion, $4.2 billion, and $24.5 billion, respectively, and prevent 264,170, 18,390, and 17,045 cardiovascular events, respectively.ConclusionsModerate-intensity statin therapy is pivotal for the attainment of optimal LDL-C goals in China, and around 10-25% of high- or very-high-risk patients would require additional non-statin agents. There is an opportunity to reduce the rising ASCVD burden in China by optimizing LLT.
| S-EPMC8996051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Several lipid-lowering therapies reduce CRP (C-reactive protein) independently of LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) reduction, but the association between CRP parameters and benefits from more-intensive LDL-C lowering is inconclusive. We aimed to determine whether the benefits of more- versus less-intensive LDL-C lowering on cardiovascular events related to baseline, achieved, or magnitude of reduction in CRP concentrations. Methods and Results PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through July 2, 2018. We included randomized controlled cardiovascular outcome trials of LDL-C lowering with statins or ezetimibe. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and rated study quality. Data were analyzed using meta-analysis and metaregression analysis. Rate ratios of mortality and cardiovascular outcomes associated with baseline, achieved, and magnitude reduction of CRP concentration were calculated. Twenty-four trials were included, with 171 250 patients randomly assigned to more- or less-intensive LDL-C-lowering treatments. Median follow-up duration was 4.2 years. More-intensive LDL-C lowering resulted in a significant reduction in incidences of all outcomes. Compared with less-intensive LDL-C lowering, more-intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with less reductions in myocardial infarction with a higher baseline CRP concentration (change in rate ratios per 1-mg/L increase in log-transformed CRP, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P=0.007]), but not other outcomes. Similar risk reductions occurred for more- versus less-intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy regardless of the magnitude of CRP reduction or the achieved CRP level for all outcomes. Conclusions Baseline CRP concentrations might be associated with the benefits of LDL-C lowering on myocardial infarction, but no other outcomes, whereas the achieved and magnitude of reduction in CRP did not seem to have an important association.
| S-EPMC6759897 | biostudies-other
Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about Ezetimibe's efficacy on patient-oriented outcomes have given discordant results. The aim of this study was to determine the net effect of Ezetimibe and of the widely marketed combination, Ezetimibe+simvastatin, on mortality and morbidity outcomes.We searched for RCT on Ezetimibe using MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to December 2013, Merck and Novartis online registers, and personal communications. Two authors independently selected trials fulfilling these criteria: RCTs comparing Ezetimibe±statin or another lipid-lowering drug against placebo, or against the same lipid-lowering drug at the same dosage, with a follow-up at least 24 weeks and one or more of these outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, serious adverse events (SAEs); we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane checklist. We extracted the data for major clinical events as a dichotomous measure, with the patient the unit of analysis. Pooled analysis was done with random and fixed effect based models. Trials comparing Ezetimibe plus a lipid-lowering drug against the same lipidlowering drug representing the net effect of Ezetimibe, showed a nonsignificant tendency toward damage for cancer, MI, stroke and SAEs. Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. simvastatin alone showed a stronger tendency towards a higher risk for all-cause death (2.52; 0.65-9.74), CV death (3.04; 0.48-19.21), non-CV death (3.03; 0.12-73.50), MI (1.91; 0.42-8.70), stroke (2.38; 0.46-12.35), cancer (RR 11.11; 0.62-198.29), and SAEs (1.45; 0.95-2.23). Limitations include small numbers of events and inadequate power of the pooling. Trials comparing Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo showed non-significant effects: MI (0.81; 0.66-1.00 p = 0.051), all-cause death (1.02; 0.95-1.09), CV death (0.91; 0.80-1.04), non-CV death (108; 0.99-1.18), stroke (0.86; 0.72-1.04), cancer (1.18; 0.80-1.74), SAEs (1.01; 0.96-1.06).Ezetimibe±simvastatin had inconsistent effects on important outcomes. No firm conclusions are possible, but findings indicative of damage suggest much more selective use of Ezetimibe±simvastatin.
| S-EPMC4411142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), guidelines recommend optimizing statin treatment, and consensus pathways suggest use of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in patients with persistently elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite use of statins. Recent trials have provided evidence of benefit in reduction of cardiovascular events with these agents.ObjectiveTo estimate the percentage of patients with ASCVD who would require a PCSK9 inhibitor when oral lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is intensified first.Design, setting, and participantsThis simulation model study used a large administrative database of US medical and pharmacy claims to identify a cohort of 105 269 patients with ASCVD enrolled from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, who met the inclusion criteria (database cohort). Patients were sampled with replacement (bootstrapping) to match the US epidemiologic distribution and entered into a Monte Carlo simulation (simulation cohort) that applied stepwise treatment intensification algorithms in those with LDL-C levels of at least 70 mg/dL. All patients not initially receiving a statin were given atorvastatin, 20 mg, and the following LLT intensification steps were applied: uptitration to atorvastatin, 80 mg; add-on ezetimibe therapy; add-on alirocumab therapy, 75 mg (a PCSK9 inhibitor); and uptitration to alirocumab, 150 mg. Sensitivity analyses included evolocumab as a PCSK9 inhibitor. Efficacy was estimated from published studies and incorporated patient-level variation. Data were analyzed from December 2015 to May 2017.ExposuresTreatment intensification strategies with LLT.Main outcomes and measuresUse of LLT among the population with ASCVD and distributions of LDL-C levels under various treatment intensification scenarios.ResultsInclusion criteria were met by 105 269 individuals in the database cohort (57.2% male and 42.8% female; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [12.1] years). In the simulation cohort (1 million patients; 54.8% male and 45.2% female; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.2] years), before treatment intensification, 51.5% used statin monotherapy and 1.7% used statins plus ezetimibe. Only 25.2% achieved an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL. After treatment intensification, 99.3% could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL, including 67.3% with statin monotherapy, 18.7% with statins plus ezetimibe, and 14% with add-on PCSK9 inhibitor.Conclusions and relevanceLarge gaps exist between recommendations and current practice regarding LLT in the population with ASCVD. In our model that assumes no LLT intolerance and full adherence, intensification of oral LLT could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL in most patients, with only a modest percentage requiring a PCSK9 inhibitor.
| S-EPMC5710173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLipid-lowering therapy (LLT) reduces cardiovascular (CV) events, but data are conflicting on all-cause mortality, especially among older adults. Though LLT does not induce cancer, some randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found a pattern of increased cancer death under LLT. Our objective was to assess a possible shift from CV to cancer death in LLT trials (i.e. an increase in cancer and decrease in CV death) and to investigate potential subgroups at risk.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We retrieved RCTs from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central until 08/2023. We extracted the number of CV and cancer deaths in the treatment vs. in the control arm, calculated the relative risk (RR) by dividing the risk of death in the treatment over the risk of death in the control group and then pooled them using random-effect meta-analysis. We performed subgroup analyses on primary and secondary prevention, and according to different age cut-offs.ResultsWe included 27 trials with 188'259 participants (23 statin; 4 ezetimibe trials). The trials reported 4056 cancer deaths, 2061 under LLT and 1995 in control groups. Overall, there was no increased risk of cancer mortality (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.10), with no difference between primary and secondary prevention. In the subgroup analyses for RCTs with ≥15% of participants aged ≥75 years, the RR of cancer death was 1.11 (1.00-1.23), while the RR for CV death was 0.96 (0.91-1.01). For RCTs with a mean age ≥ 70 years, the RR for cancer death was 1.21 (0.99-1.47).ConclusionLLT does not lead to a shift from CV to cancer death. However, there might be a possible shift with a pattern of increased cancer deaths in trials with more older adults, particularly ≥75 years. Individual participant data from LLT trials should be made public to allow further investigations.Prospero registrationCRD42021271658.
| S-EPMC10852259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) by treatment recommendations on prevention of atherosclerotic CVD remain to be evaluated. The objectives were to assess treatment gap for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) according to guidelines, potential impact on CVD outcomes, and possible avoided economic costs, in post myocardial infarction (MI) patients, if target LDL-C levels of ≤1.8 mmol/L would be achieved.All patients registered in the Swedish Secondary Prevention after Heart Intensive care Admission register, with one-year post-MI follow-up during 2013 were selected. The REACH risk prediction and a calibrated model for recurrent cardiovascular events and death were used to estimate unadjusted risk prediction based on the REACH equation henceforth called base case, and calibrated CVD outcomes based on gender-specific risk factors. The predicted impact of the LDL-C reduction on the risk of CVD was based on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists´ Collaboration findings.A sample of n = 5904 patients (74% men) with a mean age of 64 years were included. Around 70% did not reach LDL-C target ≤1.8 mmol/L. Over a 10-year period, 820-2262 events were predicted to occur in those who did not reach target corresponding to 20% - 55% risk of CVD events. To achieve LDL-C target, the mean LDL-C had to be reduced by 0.73 mmol/L (29%). If this LDL-C reduction was achieved, 195-544 life years, 132-343 CVD events, and 7.9-20.9 million Swedish crowns (MSEK) of direct costs, and 19.3-51.0 MSEK of total costs would be avoided.Lowering of LDL cholesterol to achieve target levels according to guidelines for post-MI patients may lead to fewer cardiovascular events and avoidance of event costs.
| S-EPMC5559790 | biostudies-other