Efficacy and safety of drugs in residual cardiovascular risk: A systematic review of the literature

Mario Andres Hernandez-Sómerson , Fernando Montoya-Agudelo , Gustavo Huertas-Rodriguez
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of drugs in residual cardiovascular risk: A systematic review of the literature","authors":"Mario Andres Hernandez-Sómerson ,&nbsp;Fernando Montoya-Agudelo ,&nbsp;Gustavo Huertas-Rodriguez","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The objective of this research is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs in the residual risk in any of its three components: lipid, inflammatory and thrombotic risk.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted of randomized clinical trials that included as a primary outcome, at least one of the conditions related to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The databases used were PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg>. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>and discussion: 18 studies were included in the analysis. Half of the studies had low risk of bias or some concerns. Several drugs were effective in reducing the primary outcome: ethyl eicosapentaenoeic acid (17.2 % E-EPA versus 22 % placebo HR: 0.75; 95 % CI 0.68–0.83; p &lt; 0.001), colchicine in stable coronary artery disease (6.8 % vs placebo 9.6 %, HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.57–0.83; p &lt; 0.001), Canakinumab (150 mg vs placebo ARR 15 %, HR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.74–0.98; p = 0.021) and Rivaroxaban with Aspirin in stable atherosclerotic disease (4.1 % versus aspirin 5.4 %, HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.66–0.86, P &lt; 0.001). Serious adverse events did not differ between study groups, except for a higher rate of bleeding with the use of combination antithrombotic therapy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The residual risk can be reduced through the use of different drugs that act by modifying atherogenic lipid levels, modulating inflammatory pathways and the risk of thrombosis, with an acceptable safety profile in most studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29726,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 200298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000631/pdfft?md5=c9368d4e4e6a0f6d57a6fbec4dc758df&pid=1-s2.0-S2772487524000631-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000631","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The objective of this research is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs in the residual risk in any of its three components: lipid, inflammatory and thrombotic risk.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted of randomized clinical trials that included as a primary outcome, at least one of the conditions related to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The databases used were PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.

Results

and discussion: 18 studies were included in the analysis. Half of the studies had low risk of bias or some concerns. Several drugs were effective in reducing the primary outcome: ethyl eicosapentaenoeic acid (17.2 % E-EPA versus 22 % placebo HR: 0.75; 95 % CI 0.68–0.83; p < 0.001), colchicine in stable coronary artery disease (6.8 % vs placebo 9.6 %, HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.57–0.83; p < 0.001), Canakinumab (150 mg vs placebo ARR 15 %, HR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.74–0.98; p = 0.021) and Rivaroxaban with Aspirin in stable atherosclerotic disease (4.1 % versus aspirin 5.4 %, HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.66–0.86, P < 0.001). Serious adverse events did not differ between study groups, except for a higher rate of bleeding with the use of combination antithrombotic therapy.

Conclusion

The residual risk can be reduced through the use of different drugs that act by modifying atherogenic lipid levels, modulating inflammatory pathways and the risk of thrombosis, with an acceptable safety profile in most studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残留心血管风险药物的疗效和安全性:文献系统回顾
背景这项研究的目的是评估药物在血脂、炎症和血栓风险这三种残余风险中任何一种风险中的疗效和安全性。使用的数据库包括 PUBMED/MEDLINE、Scopus 和 ClinicalTrials.gov。结果与讨论:18 项研究被纳入分析。半数研究的偏倚风险较低或存在一些问题。有几种药物能有效降低主要结果:二十碳五烯酸乙酯(17.2% E-EPA 对 22% 安慰剂 HR:0.75;95 % CI 0.68-0.83;p <;0.001)、稳定型冠状动脉疾病中的秋水仙碱(6.8% 对安慰剂 9.6%,HR 0.59,95 % CI 0.57-0.83; P <0.001)、卡那库单抗(150 mg vs 安慰剂 ARR 15 %,HR 0.85,95 % CI 0.74-0.98; P = 0.021)和利伐沙班联合阿司匹林治疗稳定型动脉粥样硬化疾病(4.1 % vs 阿司匹林 5.4 %,HR 0.76,95 % CI 0.66-0.86, P <0.001)。研究组之间的严重不良事件没有差异,只是使用联合抗血栓疗法的出血率较高。结论通过使用不同的药物,可以降低残余风险,这些药物通过改变动脉粥样硬化脂质水平、调节炎症途径和血栓形成风险发挥作用,而且大多数研究的安全性是可以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 days
期刊最新文献
Interplay between lifestyle factors and polygenic risk for incident coronary heart disease in a large multiethnic cohort Comorbidities and determinants of health on heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy adherence: All of us Case detection of familial hypercholesterolemia using various criteria during an annual health examination in the workplace Does the timing of blood pressure medication really matter? Predictive value of glucose coefficient of variation for in-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing PCI: Insights from the MIMIC-IV database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1