scholarly journals Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: an overview of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e023085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Byrne ◽  
John Cullinan ◽  
Amelia Smith ◽  
Susan M Smith
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence from exclusively primary prevention data on the effectiveness of statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including stroke, and outcomes stratified by baseline risk and gender.DesignOverview of systematic reviews (SRs) using Revised-AMSTAR approach to assess quality.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and PROSPERO to June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSRs of randomised control trials (RCTs) or individual patient data (IPD) from RCTs, examining the effectiveness of statins versus placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease, CVD (including stroke) and composite endpoints, with stratification by baseline risk and gender.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsThree SRs were included. Quality of included SRs was mixed, and none reported on the risk of bias of included trials.We found trends towards reduced all-cause mortality in all SRs (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.85 to 0.97]), (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.01]) and (RR 0.78 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.15]) though it was not statistically significant in two SRs. When stratified by baseline risk, the effect on all-cause mortality was no longer statistically significant except in one medium risk category. One review reported significant reductions (RR 0.85 [95% CI 0.77 to 0.95]) in vascular deaths and non-significant reductions in non-vascular deaths (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.07]). There were significant reductions in composite outcomes overall, but mixed results were reported in these when stratified by baseline risk. These reviews included studies with participants considered risk equivalent to those with established CVD.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence on the effectiveness of statins for primary prevention with mixed findings from studies including participants with widely ranging baseline risks. Decision making for the use of statins should consider individual baseline risk, absolute risk reduction and whether risk reduction justifies potential harms and taking a daily medicine for life.Trial registration numberCRD42017064761.

scholarly journals Statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: modelling guidelines and patient preferences based on an Irish cohort

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (683) ◽  
pp. e373-e380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Byrne ◽  
John Cullinan ◽  
Paddy Gillespie ◽  
Rafael Perera ◽  
Susan M Smith
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Recommended Treatment ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Very High ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

BackgroundChanges in clinical guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have widened eligibility for statin therapy.AimTo illustrate the potential impacts of changes in clinical guidelines.Design and settingModelling the impacts of seven consecutive European guidelines based on a cohort of people aged ≥50 years from the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing.MethodThe eligibility for statin therapy of a sample of people without a history of CVD was established, according to changing guideline recommendations and modelled associated potential costs. The authors calculated the numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one major vascular event in patients at the lowest baseline risk for which each of the seven guidelines recommended treatment, and for those at low, medium, high, and very-high risk according to 2016 guidelines. These were compared with the NNT that patients reported as required to justify taking a daily medicine.ResultsThe proportion of patients eligible for statins increased from approximately 8% in 1987 to 61% in 2016; associated costs rose from €13.9 million to €107.1 million per annum. The NNT for those at the lowest risk for which each guideline recommended treatment rose from 40 to 400. By 2016, the NNT for low-risk patients was 400 compared to ≤25 very-high risk patients. The proportion of patients eligible for statins achieving NNT levels that patients regarded as justified to taking a daily medicine fell as guidelines changed over time.ConclusionIncreased eligibility for statin therapy impacts large proportions of the present population and healthcare budgets. Decisions to take and reimburse statins should be considered on the basis of expected cost-effectiveness and acceptability to patients.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Cost-effectiveness comparison

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar H. Franco ◽  
Arno J. der Kinderen ◽  
Chris De Laet ◽  
Anna Peeters ◽  
Luc Bonneux
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four risk-lowering interventions (smoking cessation, antihypertensives, aspirin, and statins) in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods: Using data from the Framingham Heart Study and the Framingham Offspring study, we built life tables to model the benefits of the selected interventions. Participants were classified by age and level of risk of coronary heart disease. The effects of risk reduction are obtained as numbers of death averted and life-years saved within a 10-year period. Estimates of risk reduction by the interventions were obtained from meta-analyses and costs from Dutch sources.Results: The most cost-effective is smoking cessation therapy, representing savings in all situations. Aspirin is the second most cost-effective (€2,263 to €16,949 per year of life saved) followed by antihypertensives. Statins are the least cost-effective (€73,971 to €190,276 per year of life saved).Conclusions: A cost-effective strategy should offer smoking cessation for smokers and aspirin for moderate and high levels of risk among men 45 years of age and older. Statin therapy is the most expensive option in primary prevention at levels of 10-year coronary heart disease risk below 30 percent and should not constitute the first choice of treatment in these populations.

Aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Pallikadavath ◽  
L Ashton ◽  
J Burton ◽  
N Brunskill ◽  
L Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Aspirin is widely used in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Its use in primary prevention, particularly in CKD, is less clear. Previous reviews have offered inconclusive findings for the benefit of aspirin in CKD. Recent trials have been completed that may help provide more conclusive answers in CKD. Purpose This study aimed to assess the role of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD and its associated adverse events in individuals with CKD. Methods A pre-defined protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014008860) was used. The OVID Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for studies from 1996 to the 15th September 2020. Abstracts and full-texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Randomised controlled trials that compared aspirin to placebo in individuals with non-endstage CKD without CVD nor primary renal disease were included. The primary outcomes of interests were: CVD, major and minor bleeding events. Secondary outcomes of interest were: all-cause mortality, coronary artery disease and stroke. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to calculate a pooled relative risk (RR). Results Five trials were included with 434 CVD events in 7,825 individuals with CKD. Aspirin offered no statistically significant benefit in reduction of CVD events (RR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.57, 1.09) but significantly increased both minor (RR = 2.62, 95%CI: 1.64, 4.20) and major bleeding (RR= 1.51, 95%CI: 1.13, 2.02) events compared to placebo. Aspirin conferred no benefit for all-cause mortality (RR= 0.89, 95%CI: 0.64, 1.22), coronary heart disease (RR= 0.66, 95%CI: 0.27, 1.63) and stroke (RR= 0.94, 95%CI: 0.55, 1.58). Conclusion Aspirin cannot be recommended for the primary prevention of CVD in individuals with CKD as it offers no conclusive benefit and increases the risk of bleeding. Other strategies to optimise CVD primary prevention in individuals with CKD should be prioritised.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document