Folkert H. van Bruggen, Esther C. de Haas, Sytse U. Zuidema, Hendrika J. Luijendijk
{"title":"Time Gained to Cardiovascular Disease by Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy: Results of Individual Placebo-Controlled Trials and Pooled Effects","authors":"Folkert H. van Bruggen, Esther C. de Haas, Sytse U. Zuidema, Hendrika J. Luijendijk","doi":"10.1007/s40256-024-00668-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Despite the effect on blood lipid levels, the clinical benefits of intensive versus standard pharmacological lipid-lowering therapy remain unclear. Previous reviews have presented relative effects on the risk of clinical outcomes, but not the absolute risk reductions (ARRs) and the time gained to a clinical outcome, also called outcome postponement (OP). The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy in terms of ARR and OP of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause mortality.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched PubMed, Embase, and prior reviews to identify trials comparing intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy for the risk of cardiovascular disease. We extracted the number of patients with MACE, MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed according to the five domains of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. We calculated ARRs and OPs to assess the clinical benefits of intensive versus standard therapy for each outcome. We conducted meta-analyses standardizing the results to 2 and 5 years of follow-up.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 11 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 101,357). The follow-up period ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 years, with an average follow-up duration of 3.7 years. Risk of bias was generally high. During an estimated 2 years of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy, 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7–1.5) fewer patients had MACE and the OP of MACE was 4.1 days (95% CI 2.6–5.6). The effects were 0.7% (95% CI 0.4–0.8) and 2.5 days (95% CI 1.6–3.3) for MI, 0.2% (95% CI 0.1–0.3) and 0.9 days (95% CI 0.5–1.2) for stroke, and 0.2% (95% CI − 0.1 to 0.4) and 0.6 days (95% CI − 0.4 to 1.5) for all-cause death. During on average 5 years of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy, 2.4% (95% CI 1.5–3.3) fewer patients had MACE and the time gained to MACE was 23.5 days (95% CI 14.9–32.0). The effects were 1.5% (95% CI 1.0–2.1) and 14.6 days (95% CI 9.3–20.0) for MI, 0.6% (95% CI 0.4–0.8) and 5.3 days (95% CI 3.3–7.4) for stroke, and 0.4% (95% CI −0.2 to 0.1) and 3.6 days (95% CI − 2.1 to 9.2) for all-cause death.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Intensive lipid-lowering therapy during 2 or 5 years did not lead to fewer deaths or lifetime gained, and the effects on MI and stroke were negligible. The largest effect was that MACE did not occur in two of 100 patients and was postponed 3–4 weeks after 5 years of intensive treatment. Given the small effect, patients should receive this information as part of shared decision making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7652,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs","volume":"24 6","pages":"743 - 752"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40256-024-00668-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40256-024-00668-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Despite the effect on blood lipid levels, the clinical benefits of intensive versus standard pharmacological lipid-lowering therapy remain unclear. Previous reviews have presented relative effects on the risk of clinical outcomes, but not the absolute risk reductions (ARRs) and the time gained to a clinical outcome, also called outcome postponement (OP). The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy in terms of ARR and OP of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause mortality.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Embase, and prior reviews to identify trials comparing intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy for the risk of cardiovascular disease. We extracted the number of patients with MACE, MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed according to the five domains of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. We calculated ARRs and OPs to assess the clinical benefits of intensive versus standard therapy for each outcome. We conducted meta-analyses standardizing the results to 2 and 5 years of follow-up.
Results
We identified 11 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials (n = 101,357). The follow-up period ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 years, with an average follow-up duration of 3.7 years. Risk of bias was generally high. During an estimated 2 years of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy, 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7–1.5) fewer patients had MACE and the OP of MACE was 4.1 days (95% CI 2.6–5.6). The effects were 0.7% (95% CI 0.4–0.8) and 2.5 days (95% CI 1.6–3.3) for MI, 0.2% (95% CI 0.1–0.3) and 0.9 days (95% CI 0.5–1.2) for stroke, and 0.2% (95% CI − 0.1 to 0.4) and 0.6 days (95% CI − 0.4 to 1.5) for all-cause death. During on average 5 years of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy, 2.4% (95% CI 1.5–3.3) fewer patients had MACE and the time gained to MACE was 23.5 days (95% CI 14.9–32.0). The effects were 1.5% (95% CI 1.0–2.1) and 14.6 days (95% CI 9.3–20.0) for MI, 0.6% (95% CI 0.4–0.8) and 5.3 days (95% CI 3.3–7.4) for stroke, and 0.4% (95% CI −0.2 to 0.1) and 3.6 days (95% CI − 2.1 to 9.2) for all-cause death.
Conclusion
Intensive lipid-lowering therapy during 2 or 5 years did not lead to fewer deaths or lifetime gained, and the effects on MI and stroke were negligible. The largest effect was that MACE did not occur in two of 100 patients and was postponed 3–4 weeks after 5 years of intensive treatment. Given the small effect, patients should receive this information as part of shared decision making.
简介尽管强化与标准药物降脂治疗对血脂水平有影响,但其临床益处仍不明确。以往的综述介绍了对临床结局风险的相对影响,但没有介绍绝对风险降低率(ARR)和获得临床结局的时间,也称为结局延迟(OP)。本研究旨在估算强化降脂疗法与标准降脂疗法对主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、心肌梗死(MI)、中风和全因死亡率的绝对风险降低率和时间延缓率的影响:我们检索了 PubMed、Embase 和先前的综述,以确定在心血管疾病风险方面比较强化降脂疗法与标准降脂疗法的试验。我们提取了MACE、心肌梗死、中风和全因死亡的患者人数。偏倚风险根据 Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 的五个领域进行评估。我们计算了ARRs和OPs,以评估强化治疗与标准治疗对每种结果的临床益处。我们对随访 2 年和 5 年的结果进行了标准化荟萃分析:我们确定了 11 项双盲、随机对照试验(n=101,357)。随访时间从 1.5 年到 7.0 年不等,平均随访时间为 3.7 年。偏倚风险普遍较高。据估计,在强化降脂治疗与标准降脂治疗的2年中,发生MACE的患者减少了1.1%(95% 置信区间[CI] 0.7-1.5),MACE的OP为4.1天(95% CI 2.6-5.6)。对心肌梗死的影响为0.7%(95% CI 0.4-0.8)和2.5天(95% CI 1.6-3.3),对中风的影响为0.2%(95% CI 0.1-0.3)和0.9天(95% CI 0.5-1.2),对全因死亡的影响为0.2%(95% CI - 0.1-0.4)和0.6天(95% CI - 0.4-1.5)。在平均 5 年的强化降脂治疗与标准降脂治疗中,发生 MACE 的患者人数减少了 2.4% (95% CI 1.5-3.3),发生 MACE 的时间缩短了 23.5 天 (95% CI 14.9-32.0)。对心肌梗死的影响为1.5%(95% CI 1.0-2.1)和14.6天(95% CI 9.3-20.0),对中风的影响为0.6%(95% CI 0.4-0.8)和5.3天(95% CI 3.3-7.4),对全因死亡的影响为0.4%(95% CI -0.2-0.1)和3.6天(95% CI -2.1-9.2):结论:2年或5年的强化降脂治疗并未减少死亡或终生收益,对心肌梗死和中风的影响微乎其微。最大的影响是,100 例患者中有 2 例未发生心肌梗死,并且在强化治疗 5 年后,心肌梗死发生时间推迟了 3-4 周。鉴于影响较小,患者应在共同决策中了解这一信息。
期刊介绍:
Promoting rational therapy within the discipline of cardiology, the American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs covers all aspects of the treatment of cardiovascular disorders, particularly the place in therapy of newer and established agents.
Via a program of reviews and original clinical research articles, the journal addresses major issues relating to treatment of these disorders, including the pharmacology, efficacy and adverse effects of the major classes of drugs; information on newly developed drugs and drug classes; the therapeutic implications of latest research into the aetiology of cardiovascular disorders; and the practical management of specific clinical situations.
The American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs offers a range of additional enhanced features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist patients, caregivers and others in understanding important medical advances. The journal also provides the option to include various other types of enhanced features including slide sets, videos and animations. All enhanced features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. Peer review is conducted using Editorial Manager®, supported by a database of international experts. This database is shared with other Adis journals.