Comparative efficacy and safety among high-intensity statins. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jaam M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10288954 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparative efficacy and safety among high-intensity statins. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Jaam Myriam M Al-Naimi Hend Nasser HN Haddad Moumena Mahmoud MM Abushanab Dina D Al-Badriyeh Daoud D
Journal of comparative effectiveness research 20230227 3
<b>Aim:</b> To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. <b>Materials & methods:</b> A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the effect sizes in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared high-intensity statins. <b>Results:</b> Based on 44 articles, similar effectiveness was observed across the statins in reducing LDL levels from baseline. All statin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
| S-EPMC2764163 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionOsteoporosis (OP) is a prevalent skeletal disease with high mortality and morbidity, followed by acute and chronic back pain, severe spinal deformity and dysfunction. First-line drugs for OP work through antiresorptive or anabolic mechanisms. Although with good efficacy, these drugs still have certain limitations in clinical application due to delivery routes, medication cycles and cost issues. Nowadays, statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) appear to be potentially promising drugs for OP. Despite the controversy, previous studies have shown the efficacy of statins in treating OP. Other studies have further indicated that the therapeutic effect of OP in statin-treated patients is dose dependent. However, scientists have not yet reached a consensus on the use of statins for the treatment or which statin to choose first. This study aims to review the literature, ascertaining the relative efficacy and safety of statins for patients with OP using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database and preprint servers to include randomised controlled trials that compare different statins for treating OP. Primary outcomes are the incidence of overall fractures and bone mineral density changes. Secondary outcomes contain adverse effects and bone turnover markers. All items of this review will comply with the Cochrane Handbook, and the quality of evidence will be evaluated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A traditional pairwise meta-analysis and the Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to compare the efficacy of different statins.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since this is a protocol study for meta-analyses. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021242619.Search datesFrom database inception to February 2022.
| S-EPMC9115030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use of high-intensity statin monotherapy, achieving target LDL-C levels and reducing cardiovascular events in patients with or at high risk of developing ASCVD remains challenging. Our study measured the effects of low/moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe combination therapy compared to high-dose statin monotherapy on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and coronary atherosclerotic plaque reduction.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials for studies comparing the combination therapy to high-intensity statin monotherapy in terms of MACEs and coronary atherosclerotic plaque reduction. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or major cardiovascular events (MI, HF, Revascularization, or non-fatal stroke). Other outcomes included other MACEs, lipid-lowering efficacy, and safety outcomes. A protocol was registered to PROSPERO under registration number [CRD42024545807].Results15 studies encompassing 251,450 participants were included in our meta-analysis. In our pooled analysis of observational studies, combination therapy was associated with lower rates of the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.76, CI 95% [0.73, 0.80]), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.80, CI 95% [0.74, 0.88]), all-cause death (HR = 0.84, CI 95% [0.78, 0.91]), and non-fatal stroke (HR = 0.81, CI 95% [0.75, 0.87]). However, the pooled analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between both arms concerning clinical endpoints. Combination therapy had a higher number of patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL (RR = 1.27, CI 95% [1.21, 1.34]), significantly lowered LDL-C (MD = -7.95, CI 95% [-10.02, -5.89]) and TC (MD = -26.77, CI 95% [-27.64, -25.89]) in the pooled analysis of RCTs. In terms of safety, the combination therapy lowered muscle-related adverse events (RR = 0.52, CI 95% [0.32, 0.85]) and number of patients with liver enzyme elevation (RR = 0.51, CI 95% [0.29, 0.89]) in the pooled analysis of RCTs and was associated with lower rates of new-onset diabetes (HR = 0.80, CI 95% [0.74, 0.87]) in the pooled analysis of observational studies.ConclusionEvidence from RCTs indicates that low/moderate statin therapy in combination with ezetimibe has a superior lipid-lowering effect and reduces side effects compared to high-dose statins. Observational studies suggest improved clinical outcomes but need to be corroborated by large, outcomes-powered RCTs over longer follow-up periods.
| S-EPMC11577940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt remains controversial whether adding ezetimibe to low/moderate-intensity statins has a more beneficial impact on the treatment efficacy and safety of patients with existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared to high-intensity statin regimens.HypothesisA combination of low/moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe might be more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy.MethodsWe searched databases for randomized controlled trials comparing lipid profile alterations, drug-related adverse events, and MACE components between high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. Pooled risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a random-effects model.ResultsOur comprehensive search resulted in 32 studies comprising 6162 patients treated with monotherapy against 5880 patients on combination therapy. Combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels compared to monotherapy (MD = -6.6, 95% CI: -10.6 to -2.5); however, no significant differences were observed in other lipid parameters. Furthermore, the combination therapy group experienced a lower risk of myalgia (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.57) and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74). The occurrence of MACE was similar between the two treatment groups.ConclusionsAdding ezetimibe to low/moderate-intensity statins resulted in a greater reduction in LDL-C levels, a lower rate of myalgia, and less drug discontinuation compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with existing cardiovascular disease. However, according to our meta-analysis, the observed reduction in LDL-C levels in the combination group did not correlate with a reduction in MACE compared to the high-intensity statin group.
| S-EPMC11319735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Uterine fibroids are common benign tumors among premenopausal women. High- intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an emerging non-invasive intervention which uses the high-intensity ultrasound waves from ultrasound probes to focus on the targeted fibroids. However, the efficacy of HIFU in comparison with that of other common treatment types in clinical procedure remains unclear. Objective: To investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of HIFU with other techniques which have been widely used in clinical settings. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database, and three Chinese academic databases, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort studies. The primary outcome was the rate of re-intervention, and the GRADE approach was used to interpret the findings. Results: About 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. HIFU was associated with an increased risk of re-intervention rate in comparison with myomectomy (MYO) [pooled odds ratio (OR): 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.82-8.9]. The results favored HIFU in comparison with hysterectomy (HYS) on the change of follicle-stimulating hormone [pooled mean difference (MD): -7.95, 95% CI: -8.92-6.98), luteinizing hormone (MD: -4.38, 95% CI: -5.17-3.59), and estradiol (pooled MD: 43.82, 95% CI: 36.92-50.72)]. HIFU had a shorter duration of hospital stay in comparison with MYO (pooled MD: -4.70, 95% CI: -7.46-1.94, p < 0.01). It had a lower incidence of fever (pooled OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06-0.39, p < 0.01) and a lower incidence of major adverse events (pooled OR: 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00-0.30, p < 0.01) in comparison with HYS. Conclusions: High-intensity focused ultrasound may help maintain feminity and shorten the duration of hospital stay. High-quality clinical studies with a large sample size, a long-term follow-up, and the newest HIFU treatment protocol for evaluating the re-intervention rate are suggested to be carried out. Clinical decision should be based on the specific situation of the patients and individual values.
| S-EPMC7985460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThere have been few head-to-head clinical trials of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal (AW). We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the comparative performance of pharmacotherapies for AW.MethodsSix databases were searched for randomized clinical trials through November 2021. Trials were included after a blinded review by two independent reviewers. Outcomes included incident seizures, delirium tremens, AW severity scores, adverse events, dropouts, dropouts from adverse events, length of hospital stay, use of additional medications, total benzodiazepine requirements, and death. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary ORs and Cohen's d standardized mean differences (SMDs).ResultsAcross the 149 trials, there were 10 692 participants (76% male, median 43.5 years old). AW severity spanned mild (n = 32), moderate (n = 51), and severe (n = 66). Fixed-schedule chlormethiazole (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.65), fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.59), fixed-schedule lorazepam (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45), fixed-schedule chlordiazepoxide (OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08-0.53), and divalproex (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.86) were superior to placebo at reducing incident AW seizures. However, only fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.76) reduced incident delirium tremens. Oxcarbazepine (d = -3.69; 95% CI, -6.21 to -1.17), carbamazepine (d = -2.76; 95% CI, -4.13 to -1.40), fixed-schedule oxazepam (d = -2.55; 95% CI, -4.26 to -0.83), and γ-hydroxybutyrate (d = -1.80; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.26) improved endpoint Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised scores over placebo. Promazine and carbamazepine were the only agents significantly associated with greater dropouts because of adverse events. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of the substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, inconsistency, and imprecision.ConclusionsAlthough some pharmacotherapeutic modalities, particularly benzodiazepines, appear to be safe and efficacious for reducing some measures of alcohol withdrawal, methodological issues and a high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.
| S-EPMC9969997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study was aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in treating bicompartmental knee osteoarthritis through a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.MethodsA comprehensive systematic literature search of the Pub Med, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed to identify the relevant scientific literature published until 1st March 2024. The eligible studies were evaluated for quality assessment and data extraction, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 4.1 software.ResultsA total of 1378 studies were identified. Based on strict inclusion criteria, 12 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. The results of the analysis revealed that BKA yielded better postoperative outcomes than TKA, in terms of Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee Score, Function Score, and range of knee flexion (P = 0.02; P < 0.0001; P = 0.0005, respectively). Intraoperative bleeding in the BKA group was significantly lower than that in the TKA group (P = 0.02), although postoperative complications (P < 0.05) were higher and operative time (P = 0.04) was longer in the BKA group. However, the two groups did not show any significant difference in terms of Oxford knee score and WOMAC pain score (P = 0.53 and P = 0.96, respectively).DiscussionOur present results indicate that while BKA affords better improvement in knee function and quality of life in bicompartmental knee osteoarthritis than TKA, it also increases complications and operative time. Therefore, further studies are warranted to confirm these results and assess long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.OtherSystematic review registration PROSPERO CRD420-24551418.
| S-EPMC11881321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) for PsA using network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsA systematic literature review (most recent update conducted on 1 January 2023) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of b/tsDMARDs in PsA. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for efficacy outcomes at Weeks 12-24 for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients. Safety at Weeks 12-24 was analysed in a mixed population. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change with the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated for the best-fitting models, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine relative rank.ResultsThe NMA included 41 RCTs for 22 b/tsDMARDs. For minimal disease activity (MDA), bimekizumab ranked 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th, 5th and 3rd for ACR response ACR20/50/70, respectively. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st, 2nd and 1st for ACR20/50/70, respectively. For Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100, bimekizumab ranked 2nd and 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, respectively, and 1st and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients, respectively. Bimekizumab was comparable to b/tsDMARDs for serious adverse events.ConclusionBimekizumab ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDs for efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes, and showed comparable safety, suggesting it may be a beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.
| S-EPMC11215990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfluenza is one of the most common respiratory viral infections worldwide. Numerous vaccines are used to prevent influenza. Their selection should be informed by the best available evidence. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of seasonal influenza vaccines in children, adults and the elderly.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, and websites of regulatory agencies, through December 15th, 2020. We included placebo- or no vaccination-controlled, and head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted the data, and appraised the risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza. We also synthesized data for hospitalization, mortality, influenza-like illness (ILI), pneumonia or lower respiratory-tract disease, systemic and local adverse events (AEs). We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) using pairwise and NMA with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091895.FindingsWe identified 13,439 citations. A total of 231 RCTs were included after screening: 11 studies did not provide useful data for the analysis; 220 RCTs [100,677 children (< 18 years) and 329,127 adults (18-60 years) and elderly (≥ 61 years)] were included in the NMA. In adults and the elderly, all vaccines, except the trivalent inactivated intradermal vaccine (3-IIV ID), were more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza, with a RR between 0.33 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.21-0.55) for trivalent inactivated high-dose (3-IIV HD) and 0.56 (95% CrI 0.41-0.74) for trivalent live-attenuated vaccine (3-LAIV). In adults and the elderly, compared with trivalent inactivated vaccine (3-IIV), no significant differences were found for any, except 3-LAIV, which was less efficacious [RR 1.41 (95% CrI 1.04-1.88)]. In children, compared with placebo, RR ranged between 0.13 (95% CrI 0.03-0.51) for trivalent inactivated vaccine adjuvanted with MF59/AS03 and 0.55 (95% CrI 0.36-0.83) for trivalent inactivated vaccine. Compared with 3-IIV, 3-LAIV and trivalent inactivated adjuvanted with MF59/AS03 were more efficacious [RR 0.52 (95% CrI 0.32-0.82) and RR 0.23 (95% CrI 0.06-0.87)] in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza. With regard to safety, higher systemic AEs rates after vaccination with 3-IIV, 3-IIV HD, 3-IIV ID, 3-IIV MF59/AS03-adj, quadrivalent inactivated (4-IIV), quadrivalent adjuvanted (4-IIV MF59/AS03-adj), quadrivalent recombinant (4-RIV), 3-LAIV or quadrivalent live attenuated (4-LAIV) vaccines were noted in adults and the elderly [RR 1.5 (95% CrI 1.18-1.89) to 1.15 (95% CrI 1.06-1.23)] compared with placebo. In children, the systemic AEs rate after vaccination was not significantly higher than placebo.InterpretationAll vaccines cumulatively achieved major reductions in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza in children, adults, and the elderly. While the live-attenuated was more efficacious than the inactivated vaccine in children, many vaccine types can be used in adults and the elderly.FundingThe directorate general of welfare, Lombardy region.
| S-EPMC8961170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Statin is highly recommended for dyslipidemia to prevent atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular diseases and death. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies and safeties of low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meta-analysis was conducted on data included in published studies performed to compare the effects of the two treatments on lipid parameters and hs-CRP. Safety-related parameters were also evaluated. Eighteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe reduced LDL-C (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153-0.463), TC (SE = 0.217; 95% CI 0.098-0.337), triglyceride (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153-0.463), and hs-CRP (SE = 0.190; 95% CI 0.018-0.362) significantly more than high-intensity statin therapy. In terms of safety, the two treatments were not significantly different in terms of ALT elevation, but high-intensity statin increased AST and CK significantly more than combination therapy. This analysis indicates that low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combined therapy is more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy, which suggests the addition of ezetimibe to statin should be preferred over increasing statin dose and that high-intensity statin should be used more carefully, especially in patients with related risks.
| S-EPMC8896700 | biostudies-literature