Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibition in cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of 45 randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Safety concerns about proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors make physicians reluctant to prescribe agents for patients. The present aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of alirocumab, evolocumab and bococizumab in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods

Medline, the Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for 45 randomized controlled trials, involving 97,297 patients.

Results

Compared with the control group, PCSK9 inhibitors could significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Alirocumab was associated with lower incidence of unstable angina (p < 0.05) and myocardial infarction (p < 0.05), compared with the control group. Alirocumab (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% conﬁdence interval [CI] 0.60-0.97, p < 0.05), evolocumab (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.95, p < 0.05) and bococizumab (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.84, p < 0.05) were associated with lower incidence of stroke, compared with control group. The incidence of injection-site reactions was significantly higher in alirocumab (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.45-1.93, p < 0.05), evolocumab (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41-1.91, p < 0.05) and bococizumab (OR 8.03, 95% CI 6.85-9.41, p < 0.05) group than in the control group.

Conclusions

Alirocumab and evolocumab could ameliorate lipid profile and reduce the risk of cardiac disorders and stroke with satisfactory safety and tolerability. However, injection-site reactions should be paid attention to.

SUBMITTER: Geng Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9273234 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.