Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of statin and fibrate monotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess whether in adults with dyslipidemia, statins reduce cardiovascular events, mortality, and adverse effects when compared to fibrates.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized trials of statin and fibrate monotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO International Controlled Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 30, 2019. Trials that had a follow-up of at least 28 days, and reported mortality or a cardiovascular outcome of interest were eligible for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and major cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included myalgia, serious adverse effects, elevated serum creatinine, and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

Results

We included 19 eligible trials that directly compared statin and fibrate monotherapy and reported mortality or a cardiovascular event. Studies had a limited duration of follow-up (range 10 weeks to 2 years). We did not find any evidence of a difference between statins and fibrates for cardiovascular mortality (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.94-5.86, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 2657; low certainty), major cardiovascular events (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.65, I2 = 13%; 19 studies, n = 7619; low certainty), and myalgia (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.95-1.83, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 6090; low certainty). Statins had less serious adverse effects (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91, I2 = 0%; nine studies, n = 3749; moderate certainty), less elevations in serum creatinine (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.36, I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 2553; high certainty), and more elevations in alanine aminotransferase (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03-1.99, I2 = 44%; seven studies, n = 5225; low certainty).

Conclusions

The eligible randomized trials of statins versus fibrates were designed to assess short-term lipid outcomes, making it difficult to have certainty about the direct comparative effect on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. With the exception of myalgia, use of a statin appeared to have a lower incidence of adverse effects compared to use of a fibrate.

SUBMITTER: Blais JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7872286 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of statin and fibrate monotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

Blais Joseph E JE Tong Gloria Kin Yi GKY Pathadka Swathi S Mok Michael M Wong Ian C K ICK Chan Esther W EW

PloS one 20210209 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether in adults with dyslipidemia, statins reduce cardiovascular events, mortality, and adverse effects when compared to fibrates.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized trials of statin and fibrate monotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO International Controlled Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 30, 2019. Trials that had a follow-up of at least 28 days, and reported mortality or ...[more]

PMID: 33561179

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dapagliflozin, a novel inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2), lowers blood glucose level by specifically inhibiting the activity of SGLT-2. Previous studies showed efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin combined with other antihyperglycemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM), however, there are few studies for dapagliflozin as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as a monotherapy in T2DM and provide theoretical basis for clinical rational use of drugs. METHODS:We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placbo-controlled clinical studies in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database through October 2018, we also manually screened list of references to the previous meta-analysis of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Data search and extraction were completed with a standardized data form and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS:Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 2033 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin monotherapy was associated with a reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.60%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.67%, -0.52%; P < .00001), fasting plasam glucose (FPG) (WMD: -1.30 mmol/L; 95% CI: -1.52, -1.08; P < .00001), and body weight (WMD: -1.50 kg; 95% CI: -1.67, -1.32; P < .00001). Dapagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of urinary tract infections (relative risk [RR]: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.49; P = .003) and genital tract infections (RR: 3.52; 95% CI: 2.06, 6.03; P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS:Dapagliflozin monotherapy was well tolerated and effective in reducing the level of HbA1c, FPG, and body weight in patients with T2DM without increasing hypoglycaemia, although it may increase the risk of urinary tract infections and genital tract infections. This meta-analysis provides an evidence for the treatment in patients with T2DM. However, more randomized clinical evidences are still needed to verify the results.

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:Pioglitazone, the only thiazolidinedione drug in clinical practice is under scrutiny due to reported adverse effects, it's unique insulin sensitising action provides rationale to remain as a therapeutic option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pioglitazone monotherapy with monotherapies of other oral antidiabetic drugs for assessing its efficacy and safety in T2DM patients. Mean changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mean changes in fasting blood sugar (FBS) level, body weight (BW) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Safety outcomes were changes in lipid parameters, blood pressure and incidences of adverse events. Metafor package of R software and RevMan software based on random-effects model were used for analyses. We included 16 randomised controlled trials. Pioglitazone monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.11) and greater efficacy in reducing FBS level by 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.01). Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.59) and increasing high-density lipoprotein level (WMD: 0.02 mmol/l, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.10). Improved blood pressure (WMD: -1.05 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.29 to 2.19) and triglycerides level (WMD: -0.71 mmol/l, 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.28) were also observed with pioglitazone monotherapy. There was a significant association of pioglitazone with increased BW (WMD: 2.06 kg, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.01) and risk of oedema (RR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.31), though the risk of hypoglycaemia was absolutely lower (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80). Meta-analysis supported pioglitazone as an effective treatment option for T2DM patients to ameliorate hyperglycaemia, adverse lipid metabolism and blood pressure. Pioglitazone is suggested to prescribe following individual patient's needs. It can be a choice of drug for insulin resistant T2DM patients having dyslipidaemia, hypertension or history of cardiovascular disease.

Project description:Background and objectivesElevated BP is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with a prevalence of over 80% in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. We assessed the comparative BP-lowering efficacy and the safety of BP-lowering drugs in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis.Design, settings, participants, & measurementsWe performed a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials evaluating BP-lowering agents in adult patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) were systematically searched (up to August 2018) for relevant trials. The main outcome was systolic BP reduction.ResultsForty trials (4283 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and aldosterone antagonists lowered systolic BP to a greater extent than placebo, with effect sizes ranging from -10.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -6.7 mm Hg) for the aldosterone antagonists to -4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -7.2 to -1.5 mm Hg) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Aldosterone antagonists and β-blockers were superior to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and renin inhibitors at lowering systolic BP. Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists and β-blockers lowered systolic BP by 6.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -11.4 to -1.4 mm Hg) and 4.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -7.4 to -1.3 mm Hg), respectively. Systolic BP reduction was not different with angiotensin receptor blockers, α-blockers, and calcium-channel blockers compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Renin inhibitors were less effective. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists incurred risks of drug discontinuation due to adverse events and hypotension.ConclusionsBP-lowering agents significantly reduced systolic BP in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. β-Blockers and aldosterone antagonists may confer larger reductions, although treatment with aldosterone antagonists may be limited by adverse events.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of statin and fibrate monotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of statin and fibrate monotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets