Dataset Information

Association of lowering apolipoprotein B with cardiovascular outcomes across various lipid-lowering therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

In 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)).

Conclusion

While 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.

SUBMITTER: Khan SU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7489462 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomized trials of therapies that primarily lowered triglycerides have not consistently shown reductions in cardiovascular events. METHODS:We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-regression analysis of 3 classes of lipid-lowering therapies that reduce triglycerides to a greater extent than they do low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C): fibrates, niacin, and marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids. Key inclusion criteria were a randomized controlled trial that reported major vascular events. We also incorporated data from a previous meta-regression of 25 statin trials. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio (RR) for major vascular events associated with absolute reductions in lipid parameters. RESULTS:A total of 197?270 participants from 24 trials of nonstatin therapy with 25?218 major vascular events and 177?088 participants from 25 trials of statin therapy with 20?962 major vascular events were included, for a total of 374?358 patients and 46?180 major cardiovascular events. Starting with non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, a surrogate for very-low-density lipoproteins and low-density lipoproteins, the RR per 1-mmol/L reduction in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.82; P<0.0001; 0.78 per 40 mg/dL). In a multivariable meta-regression model that included terms for both LDL-C and triglyceride (surrogates for low-density lipoproteins and very-low-density lipoproteins, respectively), the RR was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85; P<0.0001) per 1-mmol/L (0.79 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.94; P=0.0026) per 1-mmol/L (0.92 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in triglycerides. REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was a significant outlier and strongly influential trial in the meta-regression. When removed, the RRs became 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83; P<0.0001) per 1-mmol/L (0.78 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.006; P=0.06) per 1-mmol/L (0.96 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in triglycerides. In regard to omega-3 dose, each 1 g/d eicosapentaenoic acid administered was associated with a 7% relative risk reduction in major vascular events (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95]; P<0.0001), whereas there was no significant association between the dose of docosahexaenoic acid and the relative risk reduction in major vascular events (RR 0.96 [95% CI, 0.89-1.03]). CONCLUSIONS:In randomized controlled trials, triglyceride lowering is associated with a lower risk of major vascular events, even after adjustment for LDL-C lowering, although the effect is less than that for LDL-C and attenuated when REDUCE-IT is excluded. Furthermore, the benefits of marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids, particularly high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid, appear to exceed their lipid-lowering effects.

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the reductions of C-reactive protein (CRP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in different lipid-lowering drugs, and to assess the relationships between the reductions of CRP, LDL-C, and cardiovascular (CV) events.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to September 1, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9-mAbs), or ezetimibe against placebo with a treatment duration of at least 4 weeks and data on the effects of cholesterol-lowering interventions on LDL-C and CRP were included in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.ResultsCompared with placebo treatment, statins and ezetimibe treatments resulted in a significant decrease in LDL-C level (statins: WMD -47.94 mg/dL, 95% CI -51.21 to -44.67 mg/dL; ezetimibe: WMD -22.84 mg/dL, 95% CI -26.76 to -18.92 mg/dL) and CRP level (statins: WMD -0.67 mg/L, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.45 mg/dL; ezetimibe: -0.64 mg/L, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.21 mg/dL). Compared with placebo treatment, treatment with PCSK9-mAbs resulted in significant decrease in LDL-C level (WMD -54.24 mg/dL, 95% CI -59.77 to -48.70 mg/dL), while the concentration of CRP did not decrease significantly. Meta-regression analysis showed no significant association between change in CRP level and change in LDL-C level. Subgroup comparisons suggested that treatment with PCSK9-mAbs showed a greater reduction in LDL-C level when compared with the statins group and ezetimibe group, while the risks of CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke showed no significant differences.ConclusionBased on the current study, our results suggested that statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9-mAbs are effective in reducing LDL-C levels. Treatment with statins and ezetimibe also demonstrated a significant effect on CRP. The traditional lipid-lowering strategy including statin and ezetimibe showed similar benefit on CV outcomes compared with the PCSK9-mAbs treatment.

Project description:BackgroundEffects of antihyperglycemic therapies on cardiovascular and heart failure (HF) risks have varied widely across cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), and underlying factors remain incompletely understood. We aimed to determine the relationships of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or bodyweight changes with these outcomes in all CVOTs of antihyperglycemic therapies.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 25 January 2023 for all randomized controlled CVOTs of antihyperglycemic therapies reporting both major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and HF outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. We performed meta-regression analyses following random-effects meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of HbA1c or bodyweight reductions on each outcome.ResultsThirty-five trials comprising 256,524 patients were included. Overall, antihyperglycemic therapies reduced MACE by 9% [risk ratio (RR): 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94; P < 0.001; I2 = 36.5%]. In meta-regression, every 1% greater reduction in HbA1c was associated with a 14% reduction in the RR of MACE (95% CI 4-24; P = 0.010), whereas bodyweight change was not associated with the RR of MACE. The magnitude of the reduction in MACE risk associated with HbA1c reduction was greater in trials with a higher baseline prevalence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, antihyperglycemic therapies showed no overall significant effect on HF (RR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.87-1.04; P = 0.28; I2 = 75.9%). In a subgroup analysis based on intervention type, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) conferred the greatest HF risk reduction (RR: 0.68; 95% CI 0.62-0.75; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%). In meta-regression, every 1 kg bodyweight reduction, but not HbA1c reduction, was found to reduce the RR of HF by 7% (95% CI 4-10; P < 0.001); however, significant residual heterogeneity (P < 0.001) was observed, and SGLT2i reduced HF more than could be explained by HbA1c or bodyweight reductions.ConclusionsAntihyperglycemic therapies reduce MACE in an HbA1c-dependent manner. These findings indicate that HbA1c can be a useful marker of MACE risk reduction across a wide range of antihyperglycemic therapies, including drugs with pleiotropic effects. In contrast, HF is reduced not in an HbA1c-dependent but in a bodyweight-dependent manner. Notably, SGLT2i have shown class-specific benefits for HF beyond HbA1c or bodyweight reductions.

Project description:Importance:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of lipid-lowering therapies form the evidence base for national and international guidelines. However, concerns exist that women and older patients are underrepresented in RCTs. Objective:To determine the trends of representation of women and older patients (?65 years) in RCTs of lipid-lowering therapies from 1990 to 2018. Data Sources:The electronic databases of MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1990 through December 2018. Study Selection:RCTs of lipid-lowering therapies with sample sizes of at least 1000 patients and follow-up periods of at least 1 year were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Two independent investigators abstracted the data on a standard data collection form. Main Outcomes and Measures:Patterns of representation of women and older adults were examined overall in lipid-lowering RCTs and according to RCT-level specific characteristics. The participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) metric was used to estimate the representation of women compared with their share of disease burden. Results:A total of 60 RCTs with 485?409 participants were included. The median (interquartile range) number of participants per trial was 5264 (1062-27?564). Overall, representation of women was 28.5% (95% CI, 24.4%-32.4%). There was an increase in the enrollment of women from the period 1990 to 1994 (19.5%; 95% CI, 18.4%-20.5%) to the period 2015 to 2018 (33.6%; 95% CI, 33.4%-33.8%) (P for trend?=?.01). Among common limiting factors were inclusion of only postmenopausal women or surgically sterile women (28.3%; 95% CI, 18.5%-40.7%) or exclusion of pregnant (23.3%; 95% CI, 14.4%-35.4%) and lactating (16.6%; 95% CI, 9.3%-28.1%) women. Women were underrepresented compared with their disease burden in lipid RCTs of diabetes (PPR, 0.74), heart failure (PPR, 0.27), stable coronary heart disease (PPR, 0.48), and acute coronary syndrome (PPR, 0.51). Only 23 RCTs with 263?628 participants reported the proportion of older participants. Overall representation of older participants was 46.7% (95% CI, 46.5%-46.9%), which numerically increased from 31.6% (95% CI, 30.8%-32.3%) in the period 1995 to 1998 to 46.2% (95% CI, 46.0%-46.5%) in the period 2015 to 2018 (P for trend?=?.43). A total of 53.0% (95% CI, 41.8%-65.3%) and 36.6% (95% CI, 25.6% to 49.3%) trials reported outcomes according to sex and older participants, respectively, which did not improve over time. Conclusions and Relevance:In this systematic review of RCTs of lipid-lowering therapies, the enrollment of women and older participants increased over time, but women and older participants remained consistently underrepresented. This limits the evidence base for efficacy and safety in these subgroups.