Effecacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors for prevention of stroke

OBJECTIVE: To determine if 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) are effective in preventing fatal and nonfatal strokes in patients at increased risk of coronary artery disease. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical trials were identified by a computerized search of MEDLINE (1983 to June 1996), by an assessment of the bibliographies of published studies, meta-analyses and reviews, and by contacting pharmaceutical companies that manufacture statins. Trials were included in the analysis if their patients were randomly allocated to a statin or placebo group, and reported data on stroke events. Thirteen of 28 clinical trials were selected for review. Data were extracted for details of study design, patient characteristics, interventions, duration of therapy, cholesterol measurements, and the number of fatal and nonfatal stroke events in each arm of therapy. Missing data on stroke events were obtained by contacting the investigators of the clinical trials. MAIN RESULTS: Among 19,921 randomized patients, the rate of total stroke in the placebo group was 2.38% (90% nonfatal and 10% fatal). In contrast, patients who received statins had a 1.67% stroke rate. Using an exact stratified analysis, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for total stroke was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.86; p =.0005). The pooled OR for nonfatal stroke was 0.64 (95% CI 0.51, 0.79; p =.00001), and the pooled OR for fatal stroke was 1.25 (95% CI 0.71, 2.24; p =.4973). In separate analyses, reductions in total and nonfatal stroke risk were found to be significant only for trials of secondary coronary disease prevention. Regression analysis showed no statistical association between the magnitude of cholesterol reduction and the relative risk for any stroke outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence clearly shows that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors reduce the morbidity associated with strokes in patients at increased risk of cardiac events. Data from 13 placebo-controlled trials suggest that on average one stroke is prevented for every 143 patients treated with statins over a 4-year period.     

Do statins cause cancer? A meta-analysis of large randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE: Although the short-term safety and tolerability of statins has been well established, their potential carcinogenicity in the long term is still debated. The goal of this study was to determine whether long-term treatment with statins is associated with an increased risk of fatal and nonfatal cancers.

METHODS: We searched the Medline database between January 1966 and December 1999 for randomized, controlled trials of human subjects in which monotherapy with a statin was compared with placebo. No language restrictions were applied. Only trials with a minimum treatment duration of 4 years and a minimum of 1,000 subjects were included. Studies that did not provide information on fatal or nonfatal cancers were excluded. Data on fatal and nonfatal cancers and all-cause mortality were extracted by a single nonblinded reviewer. Overall crude estimates of risk difference were computed by summing the numerators and denominators of trial-specific risk estimates.

RESULTS: Five trials met the inclusion criteria. The estimated differences in absolute risk between treatment and placebo were as follows (negative risks indicate that treatment was safer than placebo): all nonfatal cancers, 0.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.8% to 0.8%); all fatal cancers, –0.1% (95% CI: –0.7% to 0.4%); all fatal and nonfatal cancers combined, –0.1% (95% CI: –1.0% to 0.7%); and all-cause mortality, –1.5% (95% CI: 2.8% to 0.2%).

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates no association between statin use over a 5-year period and the risk of fatal and nonfatal cancers. This conclusion is limited by the relatively short follow-up of the studies analyzed. Similar analyses of data from studies with longer follow-up periods would be valuable.     

How should patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction be managed? A meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE: Patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) may be managed with either an "invasive" or "conservative" strategy. It is unclear which of these strategies is superior. METHODS: We identified studies with MEDLINE and EMBASE searches (1966-September 2003) and by reviewing reference lists. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials comparing management strategies for patients in the early post-unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation MI period and had follow-up data for at least 3 months. RESULTS: Seven trials that randomized a total of 9212 patients were included. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for all-cause mortality was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 1.27). The occurrence of fatal or nonfatal re-infarction was reduced with an invasive strategy (OR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.88) as was readmission to hospital (OR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.94). The endpoints of nonfatal MI and the composite of death or nonfatal MI showed nonsignificant trends favoring an invasive strategy. Trials that included a higher proportion of patients with ST-segment depression on admission and trials in which a larger proportion of patients underwent revascularization showed a greater magnitude of benefit for an invasive strategy. CONCLUSION: For patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation MI, an invasive strategy reduces rates of fatal or nonfatal re-infarction and hospital readmission, but not all-cause mortality, when compared with a noninvasive strategy. These results suggest that an invasive management strategy should be considered for all patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation MI and perhaps in particular those with ST-segment depression.     

Interventions for prevention of post-operative atrial fibrillation and its complications after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery. We aimed to evaluate, by meta-analysis, all randomized trials testing interventions for preventing AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-four trials of prevention of post-operative AF were identified, by standard search methods, and analysed by standard meta-analysis techniques. All five commonly tested interventions, beta-blockers (BBs), sotalol, amiodarone, magnesium, and atrial pacing, were effective in preventing AF. The odds ratio (OR) for the effect of BB on the incidence of AF was 0.36 (95% CI 0.28-0.47, P<0.001), but after trials confounded by post-operative non-study BB withdrawal were excluded was 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.87, P=0.002). Sotalol reduced AF, compared with placebo (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26-0.45, P<0.001) and compared with conventional BB (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.65, P<0.001). Amiodarone reduced AF (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.57, P<0.001). Magnesium (Mg) also had an effect (OR 0.57 95% CI 0.42-0.77) but there was significant heterogeneity (P<0.001), partly explained by concomitant BB. The effect of Mg with BB was less (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.60-1.16). Pacing reduced AF (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77, P<0.001), despite wide variations in techniques. Only amiodarone and pacing significantly reduced length of stay, average -0.60 days (95% CI -0.92 to -0.29) and -1.3 days (95% CI -2.55 to -0.08), respectively. Collectively, all treatments analysed together reduced stroke (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.98). Amiodarone was the only intervention that alone significantly reduced stroke rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.95). CONCLUSION: All five interventions reduced the incidence of AF, though the effect of BBs is less than previously thought. The significant reductions in length of stay and stroke in meta-analysis suggest that there are worthwhile benefits from aggressive prevention. Larger studies to confirm these clinical benefits and evaluate their cost-effectiveness would be worthwhile.     

Effects of statins on stroke prevention in patients with and without coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE: To assess if lipid-lowering interventions (statins, fibrates, resins, n-3 fatty acids, diet) prevent nonfatal and fatal strokes in patients with and without coronary heart disease. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature up to August 2002 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials of lipid-lowering interventions that reported nonfatal and fatal stroke and mortality data. The search yielded 65 trials with 200,607 patients for a meta-analysis to determine whether treatment effects differed between types of lipid-lowering interventions and between patient samples with and without coronary heart disease. RESULTS: The risk ratio for nonfatal and fatal stroke for statins as compared with control interventions was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.90). The corresponding risk ratios for statins as compared with control were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.87) for patients with coronary heart disease and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.95) for those without coronary heart disease. The confidence intervals of risk ratios for nonfatal and fatal stroke associated with fibrates, resins, n-3 fatty acids, and diet all included 1, as did the confidence intervals for these interventions in patients with and without coronary heart disease. Weighted meta-regression analysis suggested a stronger association of stroke reduction with statin treatment than with the extent of cholesterol reduction. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that statins reduce the incidence of stroke in patients with and without coronary heart disease.     

Comparison of glucagons like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptide-4 inhibitors regarding cardiovascular safety and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis

AimThe effects of dipeptidyl peptide-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality were compared.MethodsThe literature on DPP-4is and SGLT-2is treatment of T2DM was searched through Pubmed, Embase, and the web of science databases with the search deadline May 15, 2020. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare the effects of two types of inhibitors on cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death) and all-cause mortality in T2DM patients.ResultsA total of 15 articles were screened, including 125,796 patients. Compared with DPP-4is, SGLT-2is can significantly reduce MACE [OR: 0.86 95% CI (0.78, 0.92)], CV death [OR: 0.85 95% CI (0.71, 1.01)], nonfatal MI [OR: 0.84 95%CI (0.74, 0.95)] and all-cause mortality [OR: 0.78 95% CI (0.69, 0.89)]. For nonfatal stroke, DPP-4is and SGLT-2is have no statistically significant difference [OR: 0.99 95% CI (0.91, 1.07)].ConclusionThese data indicate that SGLT-2is is more beneficial to MACE and all-cause mortality in T2DM patients than DPP-4is.     

An overview of randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after myocardial infarction

Of 22 randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after myocardial infarction (MI), one trial had results that achieved conventional statistical significance. To determine whether or not these studies, in the aggregate, show a significant benefit of rehabilitation after myocardial infarction, we performed an overview of all randomized trials, involving 4,554 patients; we evaluated total and cardiovascular mortality, sudden death, and fatal and nonfatal reinfarction. For each endpoint, we calculated an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the trials combined. After an average of 3 years of follow-up, the ORs were significantly lower in the rehabilitation than in the comparison group: specifically, total mortality (OR = 0.80 [0.66, 0.96]), cardiovascular mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.63, 0.96]), and fatal reinfarction (OR = 0.75 [0.59, 0.95]). The OR for sudden death was significantly lower in the rehabilitation than in the comparison group at 1 year (OR = 0.63 [0.41, 0.97]). The data were compatible with a benefit at 2 (OR = 0.76 [0.54, 1.06]) and 3 years (OR = 0.92 [0.69, 1.23]), but these findings were not statistically significant. For nonfatal reinfarction, there were no significant differences between the two groups after 1 (OR = 1.09 [0.76, 1.57]), 2 (OR = 1.10 [0.82, 1.47]), or 3 years (OR = 1.09 [0.88, 1.34]) of follow-up. The observed 20% reduction in overall mortality reflects a decreased risk of cardiovascular mortality and fatal reinfarction throughout at least 3 years and a reduction in sudden death during the 1st year after infarction and possibly for 2-3 years. With respect to the independent effects of the physical exercise component of cardiac rehabilitation, the relatively small number of "exercise only" trials, combined with the possibility that they may have had a formal or informal nonexercise component precludes the possibility of reaching any definitive conclusion. To do so would require a randomized trial of sufficient size to distinguish between no effect and the most plausible effect based on the results of this overview.     

Carvedilol protects better against vascular events than metoprolol in heart failure: results from COMET.

OBJECTIVES: We explored whether vascular protection by carvedilol could contribute to its superior effects in the treatment of heart failure (HF) compared with metoprolol tartrate in the COMET (Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial) study. BACKGROUND: Full adrenergic blockade by carvedilol and additional (e.g., antioxidative) properties may lead to vascular protection relative to beta-1 blockade alone, and contribute to its efficacy in HF treatment. METHODS: Three thousand twenty-nine patients with HF due to ischemic (51%) or idiopathic cardiomyopathy (44%) were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 1,511) or metoprolol (n = 1,518) and followed for 58 months. Vascular end points were cardiovascular death, stroke, stroke death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unstable angina. RESULTS: The effect of carvedilol on cardiovascular death improved consistently in subgroups with prespecified baseline variables. Myocardial infarctions were reported in 69 carvedilol and 94 metoprolol patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.97, p = 0.03). Cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI combined were reduced by 19% in carvedilol (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, p = 0.0009 vs. metoprolol). Unstable angina was reported as an adverse event in 56 carvedilol and in 77 metoprolol patients (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.501 to 0.998, p = 0.049). A stroke occurred in 65 carvedilol and 80 metoprolol patients (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10). Stroke or MI combined occurred in 130 carvedilol and 168 metoprolol patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95, p = 0.015), and fatal MI or fatal stroke occurred in 34 carvedilol and in 72 metoprolol patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, p = 0.0002). Death after a nonfatal MI or stroke occurred in 61 of 124 carvedilol and in 106 of 160 metoprolol patients (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, p = 0.0086). CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol improves vascular outcomes better than metoprolol. These results suggest a ubiquitous protective effect of carvedilol against major vascular events.     

Relation between hypertension and cardiovascular events--implications for coronary prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To study the relation between hypertension and cardiovascular events--stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and chronic renal failure (CRF)--and to define implications for cardiovascular disease prevention. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, in two stages, but with retrospective information about major cardiovascular events. SETTING: Primary care health centers (Lisbon Regional Health Administration). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants: 3228 patients, 1100 male (439 aged up to 60 years and 661 aged 60 years) and 2128 females (860 aged up to 60 years and 1268 aged 60 years). The study covered stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic renal failure with co-variables of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, heart rate, antihypertensives, diabetes, total cholesterol, dyslipidemic therapy, and smoking. The group without hypertension (normotensives) and hypertensives--treated with antihypertensives and/or with systolic/diastolic blood pressure > or = 140/90 mmHg (n = 2169)--were compared, using logistic regression, to identify nonfatal cardiovascular complications associated with hypertension. Forward conditional logistic regression was used to test the multivariate models. The level of significance was taken to be 5%. The statistical packages Stata and SPSS were used. RESULTS: The analysis included 2839 cases (389 missing). The absolute frequencies of categorical variables were: smoking (n = 343); stroke (n = 150); myocardial infarction (n = 90); heart failure (n = 174); renal failure (n = 34); hypercholesterolemia (n = 864); diabetes (n = 375); male gender (n = 976) and female gender (n = 1863). The regression equation included the following factors: age (p < 0.001; OR = 1.068 and 95% CI 1061-1.075); body weight (p = 0.001; OR = 1.020 and 95% CI 1.008-1.032); stroke (p = 0.007; OR = 2.523 and 95% CI 1.286-4.951); HF (p = 0.013; OR = 2.449 and 95% CI 1.205-4.979); diabetes (p < 0.001; OR = 1.894 and 95% CI 1.328-2.701); hypercholesterolemia (p < 0.001; OR = 1.693 and 95% CI 1.350-2.123); and BMI (p < 0.001; OR = 1.006 and 95% CI 1.003-1.010). CONCLUSIONS: Nonfatal stroke was associated with hypertension, as was heart failure, but neither nonfatal myocardial infarction nor chronic renal failure were. Control of hypertension is therefore expected to be more efficacious in reducing cerebrovascular events than those caused by coronary heart disease.     

Efficacy and safety of statin monotherapy in older adults: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy significantly reduces cardiovascular events. Older patients, however, are less likely to be prescribed statins than younger patients due to concern over lack of indication, lower predictive value of cholesterol levels, and increased risk of adverse events. To determine the effect of statins on all-cause mortality and on major cardiovascular events, including stroke, we performed a meta-analysis of statin trials that included older adult participants. METHODS: Mortality, cardiovascular events, and adverse event outcomes were extracted from published randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of persons aged 60 years and older. RESULTS: Data on 51,351 patients were evaluated. Statins reduced all-cause mortality by 15% (95% confidence interval, 7%-22%), coronary heart disease (CHD) death by 23% (15%-29%), fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) by 26% (22%-30%), and fatal or nonfatal stroke by 24% (10%-35%). The relative risk of cancer comparing statins to placebo was 1.06 (0.95-1.18). Adverse event data were not consistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy significantly reduced all-cause and CHD mortality, as well as risk of stroke and MI. Statin therapy should be offered to older patients at high risk of atherosclerotic disease events.     

Randomized trials of vitamin E in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiological studies consistently show that individuals who choose to take high amounts of vitamin E through diet or supplements experience cardiovascular benefits, for which basic research provides plausible mechanisms. However, because the size of the postulated benefit is small to moderate, the confounding inherent in observational studies is as great as the effect size. Before the availability of randomized evidence, about 1 in 4 adults was taking vitamin E supplements in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a computerized search of the English-language literature from 1990 to the present and found 7 large-scale randomized trials of the effectiveness vitamin E in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Data were available on myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Six of the 7 trials showed no significant effect of vitamin E on cardiovascular disease. In an overview, vitamin E had neither a statistically significant nor a clinically important effect on any important cardiovascular event (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.03) or its components: nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92-1.09), nonfatal stroke (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93-1.14), or cardiovascular death (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: The ORs and CIs provide strong support for a lack of statistically significant or clinically important effects of vitamin E on cardiovascular disease. The use of agents of proven lack of benefit, especially those easily available over the counter, may contribute to underuse of agents of proven benefit and failure to adopt healthy lifestyles.     

Use of statins and fracture: results of 4 prospective studies and cumulative meta-analysis of observational studies and controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) are widely used for the treatment of hyperlipidemia, and recent in vitro and animal data suggest that statins promote bone formation and increase bone strength. METHODS: To determine whether statin use is associated with a reduced risk for fracture, we analyzed statin use and fracture rates in 4 large prospective studies (the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study, and the Rotterdam Study). We searched MEDLINE through January 2002 and abstracts from major scientific meetings and performed a cumulative meta-analysis of published and unpublished observational studies and clinical trials. The meta-analysis included 8 observational studies and 2 clinical trials that reported statin use and documented fracture outcomes. RESULTS: After adjustment for multiple factors, including age, body mass index, and estrogen use, we found a trend toward fewer hip fractures (relative hazards [RHs], 0.19-0.62) and, to a lesser extent, nonspine fractures (RHs, 0.49-0.95) among statin users in each of the 4 prospective studies. The meta-analysis of observational studies was consistent with these findings. The summary odds ratio (OR) for statin use and hip fracture was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.75), whereas that for nonspine fracture was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.88). The meta-analysis of clinical trial results did not support a protective effect with statin use for hip fracture (summary OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.48-1.58) or nonspine fracture (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies suggest that the risk for hip and nonspine fractures is lower among older women taking statin medications for hyperlipidemia, but post hoc analyses of cardiovascular trials do not. Controlled trials specifically designed to test the effect of statins on skeletal metabolism and fracture are needed.     

Low-dose aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis

Objective

Many recommendations for aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease are based on analyses of all antiplatelet therapies at all dosages and in both stable and unstable patients. Our objective was to evaluate the benefit and risk of low-dose aspirin (50-325 mg/d) in patients with stable cardiovascular disease.

Methods

Secondary prevention trials of low-dose aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease were identified by searches of the MEDLINE database from 1966 to 2006. Six randomized trials were identified that enrolled patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) (n = 1), stable angina (n = 1), or stroke/transient ischemic attack (n = 4). A random effects model was used to combine results from individual trials.

Results

Six studies randomized 9853 patients. Aspirin therapy was associated with a significant 21% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events (nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.88), 26% reduction in the risk of nonfatal MI (95% CI, 0.60-0.91), 25% reduction in the risk of stroke (95% CI, 0.65-0.87), and 13% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality (95% CI, 0.76-0.98). Patients treated with aspirin were significantly more likely to experience severe bleeding (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). Treatment of 1000 patients for an average of 33 months would prevent 33 cardiovascular events, 12 nonfatal MIs, 25 nonfatal strokes, and 14 deaths, and cause 9 major bleeding events. Among those with ischemic heart disease, aspirin was most effective at reducing the risk of nonfatal MI and all-cause mortality; however, among those with cerebrovascular disease, aspirin was most effective at reducing the risk of stroke.

Conclusion

In patients with stable cardiovascular disease, low-dose aspirin therapy reduces the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and increases the risk of severe bleeding.     

Angiotensinogen Met235Thr polymorphism, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy, and the risk of nonfatal stroke or myocardial infarction in hypertensive patients

The ThrThr genotype of the angiotensinogen (AGT) Met235Thr polymorphism has been associated with elevated AGT levels, hypertension, increased heart disease risk, and improved blood pressure (BP) response to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. We hypothesized that risk of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with ACE inhibitor use varies by AGT genotype, with a larger protective effect of ACE inhibitors in individuals with the ThrThr genotype than individuals who are carriers of the Met allele. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-control study. Participants were health maintenance organization members aged 30 to 79 years with treated hypertension. Those who survived incident stroke (n = 116) or MI (n = 208) during the study period were designated as cases. Control subjects (n = 717) were randomly sampled and frequency-matched to MI cases on age, sex, and calendar year. Health history, medication use, and AGT genotype were assessed. RESULTS: ThrThr genotype was present in 21% of stroke cases, 26% of MI cases, and 19% of control subjects. Compared with nonuse, ACE inhibitor use was associated with lower stroke risk among Thr homozygotes (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.99) than among Met carriers (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.88 to 2.4; P for interaction =.02). Compared with nonuse, ACE inhibitor use was associated with similar MI risk among Thr homozygotes (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.3) and among Met carriers (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.60 to 2.5; P for interaction = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: In this hypertensive population, the association of ACE inhibitor use with risk of nonfatal stroke varied by genotype. The protective association between ACE inhibitor use and nonfatal stroke risk among individuals with ThrThr genotype was not observed for nonfatal MI.     

beta1- and beta2-adrenergic receptor gene variation, beta-blocker use and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke

BACKGROUND: The benefits of beta-blocker therapy may depend on underlying genetic susceptibility. METHODS: We investigated the interaction of common variation in beta1 and beta2 adrenergic receptor (AR) genes with beta-blocker use on the risks of myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic stroke in a case-control study. Participants were treated pharmacologically for hypertension, aged 30-79 years, with incident MI (n = 659) or ischemic stroke (n = 279) between 1995 and 2004, and 2,249 matched controls. RESULTS: We observed an interaction of beta-blocker use with beta1-AR gene variation on MI risk (P value, 6 degrees of freedom: 0.01) and ischemic stroke risk (P value, 6 degrees of freedom: 0.04). Compared with use of other antihypertensive medications, beta-blocker use was associated with higher MI risk in carriers of one or two copies of rs#17875422 (Odds ratio (OR): 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI); 1.26-5.60) but not in homozygous carriers of the common allele (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73-1.07). Another variant, rs#2429511, interacted with beta-blocker use on both MI and ischemic stroke risks. beta-blocker use was associated with higher risk of combined MI and ischemic stroke in carriers of rs#2429511 (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03-1.50) but not in homozygous carriers of common allele (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.94). beta-blocker use did not interact with beta2-AR gene variation on the risks of MI and ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: These results, which require replication, suggest genetic variants in the beta1-AR gene may determine whether to use beta-blockers in hypertension for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.     

Statin therapy in stroke prevention: a meta-analysis involving 121,000 patients

Purpose

More than 120,000 patients now have taken part in randomized trials evaluating statin therapy for stroke prevention. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive review of all randomized trials and determine the therapeutic potential of statins for all strokes.

Methods

We searched 10 electronic databases (from inception to December 2006). We additionally contacted study authors and authors of previous reviews. We extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes related to all-cause mortality, all-stroke incidence, specific type of strokes, and cholesterol changes. We pooled data using a random-effects model and conducted meta-regression.

Results

We included 42 trials assessing statin therapy for all-stroke prevention (n = 121,285), resulting in a pooled relative risk (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.91). The pooled RR of statin therapy for all-cause mortality (n = 116,080) was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93). Each unit increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) resulted in a 0.3% increased RR of death (P = .02). Seventeen trials evaluated statins on cardiovascular death (n = 57,599, RR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.74-0.90), and 11 evaluated nonhemorrhagic cerebrovascular events (n = 58,604, RR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.69-0.94). Eleven trials reported hemorrhagic stroke incidence (total n = 54,334, RR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.68-1.30) and 21 trials reported on fatal strokes (total n = 82,278, RR 0.99, 95% CI, 0.80-1.21). Only one trial reported on statin therapy for secondary prevention.

Conclusions

Statin therapy provides high levels of protection for all-cause mortality and nonhemorrhagic strokes. This overview reinforces the need to consider prolonged statin treatment in patients at high risk of major vascular events, but caution remains for patients at risk of bleeds.     

Fluvastatin Reduces Cardiac Mortality in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

PURPOSE: To test the effectiveness of fluvastatin, 40-80 mg, in reducing the occurrence of cardiac and all-cause mortality in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Meta-analysis of all clinical trials that assessed the effects of fluvastatin in CHD patients on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as a prespecified endpoint was performed. A pooled analysis of four studies (n = 3525) was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Clinical endpoints were the incidence, and time to first occurrence, of MACE (cardiac death, nonfatal MI, revascularization), noncardiac death, or all-cause death. Lipid parameters were also analyzed. RESULTS: Fluvastatin treatment significantly prolonged the time to cardiac death (p = 0.0174) and the time to cardiac death or nonfatal MI (p = 0.0055) compared with placebo. Fluvastatin significantly reduced the risk of any MACE (Cox risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98), cardiac death (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.90), cardiac death or MI (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89), all-cause death (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94) and all-cause death or MI (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90). Fluvastatin significantly lowered total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and was well tolerated, with no cases of rhabdomyolysis in any of the studies assessed in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates clear beneficial effects of fluvastatin on cardiac and all-cause mortality in CHD patients, and supports the use of fluvastatin to reduce the incidence of MACE in a wide range of at-risk patients.     

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.ConclusionsAspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.     

Effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background:It is unclear whether there are false positive or negative results in the effects of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on various cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to explore this issue by a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Methods:We included randomized trials evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiorenal endpoints in type 2 diabetic patients. Eight endpoints evaluated in the study were fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal stroke, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD or HHF), all-cause death (ACD), cardiovascular death (CVD), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and kidney function progression (KFP). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis was conducted for each endpoint.Results:Seven randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors were included for pooled analysis. Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of MACE (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.94), MI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.99), CVD (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79–0.93), CVD or HHF (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.82), HHF (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62–0.74), KFP (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56–0.70), and ACD (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83–0.94), whereas SGLT2 inhibitors did not have significant effects on stroke (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88–1.09). Trial sequential analyses for MI and stroke showed that cumulative Z curve did not cross trial sequential monitoring boundary and required information size, whereas those for the other 6 endpoints showed that cumulative Z curve crossed trial sequential monitoring boundary and/or required information size.Conclusions:Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors conclusively reduce the risk of MACE, CVD or HHF, ACD, CVD, HHF, and KFP in patients with type 2 diabetes, whereas the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on MI and stroke are not conclusive and need to be further assessed in future studies with the adequate sample size to reject or accept the effect size.     

Effectiveness of statin therapy in adults with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) to determine the effectiveness of statin therapy; whether effectiveness varied according to patient characteristics, outcomes, or pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels; and the optimal LDL-C goal and the level at which to initiate statin therapy. METHODS: Randomized trials or systematic reviews for secondary prevention of CHD with statin therapy published between January 1966 and December 2002 were identified through MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they randomly assigned adults with CHD to statin therapy or control, enrolled at least 100 individuals per arm, reported clinical outcomes and LDL-C levels, and were published as full studies in English. Two reviewers abstracted data using a prospectively designed protocol. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies enrolling 69 511 individuals were included. Participants in 19 placebo-controlled trials had a mean age of 63 years and a mean pretreatment LDL-C level of 149 mg/dL (3.85 mmol/L); 23% were women. Statin therapy reduced CHD mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction 25% (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.79), all-cause mortality 16% (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89), and CHD mortality 23% (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83). Beneficial effects were seen in women and the elderly. There were no data to determine whether lowering the LDL-C level to less than 100 mg/dL (<2.59 mmol/L) was superior to lowering it to 100 to 130 mg/dL (2.59-3.36 mmol/L). Meta-regression analyses revealed risk reductions for CHD mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction and major vascular events across available pretreatment LDL-C levels. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy reduces mortality and morbidity in adults with CHD, even at pretreatment LDL-C levels as low as 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L).