Lipid Modification to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk in Secondary Prevention Patients with Special Emphasis on PCSK9 Inhibitor Requirement: An Analysis Based on Delphi Panel Approach

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to analyze the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapies in secondary prevention patients by analyzing their plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, current treatment, considering their inadequate response to medications (as defined in current guidelines), and the requirement for a protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.

METHODS

Delphi panel is used to seek expert consensus of experienced 12 cardiologists. A questionnaire consisting of 6 main questions is used to reflect the opinion of the expert panelists on the practices of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapies of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk. Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are covered in this present analysis.

RESULTS

According to expert opinion data, 18.6% of the patient population with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is estimated to have experienced recurrent vascular events. The current treatment of the patient population is 39.7% on high dose, 36.9% on low/moderate dose of statin, 13.1% on maximum tolerated dose statin+ezetimibe, and 1.2% on maximum tolerated dose statin+ezetimibe+protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor. The percentage of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients with inadequate treatment response is estimated to be 20.2% in those using "maximum tolerated dose statin+ezetimibe." The proportion of patients who will need to be treated with a protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor increases as their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels rises from 9.1% in 70-99 mg/dL to 50.8% in ≥160 mg/dL for these patients.

CONCLUSION

According to expert opinion, although a substantial proportion of patients with secondary prevention have not achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals, the use of protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors is very low. Since the questionnaire subject to panel discussion did not include any question elaborating the issue, the discrepancy between the recommendation of the related guidelines and Turkish practice needs further studies for the explanation.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers and cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension is the most prevalent modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess the effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade on CV outcomes.

METHODS

This study was designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Databases were searched for articles published as of December 2014. Two sets of studies were selected. One set included randomized clinical trials comparing RAAS blocker (angiotensin II receptor blocker [ARB] or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]) with placebo or active treatment. Second set included head-to-head randomized clinical trials comparing an ARB with an ACEI. Studies in both sets had reported any CV outcome parameter or death, i.e., all-cause mortality, CV mortality, emergence of CV events, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event, stroke, heart failure, and hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

Fifty-four pairwise comparisons of 51 trials with 277,609 patients were included. Statistically significant differences in favor of RAAS blockers vs non-RAAS blockers (risk ratio [RR] ranging from 0.805 to 0.967) were observed in terms of most CV outcomes, including all-cause mortality, CV mortality, CV events, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke. ARBs and ACEIs were found to be completely comparable (RR ranging from 0.923 to 1.090, all non-significant).

CONCLUSION

RAAS blockers are superior to medications other than RAAS blockers with respect to impact on CV outcomes in patients with hypertension. ARBs and ACEIs are comparable in terms of these outcomes.

Hypertension and valsartan

Hypertension, which is pointed to be the most frequent cause of death in the World and in Turkey and defined by the World Health Organization as global health crisis and the prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, is a problem threatening public health. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in pathophysiology and in turn treatment of the disease. The drugs suppressing RAS are recommended both for monotherapy and combinations. Together with the blood pressure lowering effects and positive contributions of this group of drugs to the cardiovascular and renal process have been proved by clinical studies. In this review, the recent developments about the hypertension treatment were summarized and the place of valsartan molecule, being an angiotensin receptor blocker in hypertension treatment, was examined in the light of the studies in which the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of valsartan were evaluated.

The most critical question when reading a meta-analysis report: Is it comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges?

Objective:

While the number of meta-analyses published has increased recently, most of them have problems in the design, analysis, and/or presentation. An example of meta-analyses with a study selection bias is a meta-analysis of over 160,000 patients in 20 clinical trials, published in Eur Heart J in 2012 by van Vark, which concluded that the significant effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition on all-cause mortality was limited to the class of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), whereas no mortality reduction could be demonstrated with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Here, we aimed to discuss how to select studies for a meta-analysis and to present our results of a re-analysis of the van Vark data.

Methods:

The data were re-analyzed in three steps: firstly, only ACEI/ARB-based studies (4 ACEI and 12 ARB studies) were included; secondly, placebo-controlled studies were excluded, and 10 studies left were analyzed; and thirdly, 2 studies that were retracted after the manuscript of van Vark had been published were excluded. The final analysis included 8 studies with ~65,000 patients (3 ACEI and 5 ARB studies).

Results:

The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were 0.992 (95% CI 0.899-1.095; p=0.875) and 1.017 (0.932-1.110; p=0.703) for the ACEI versus control group and 1.007 (0.958-1.059; p=0.778) and 0.967 (0.911-1.025; p=0.258) for the ARB versus control group in the first step. The results were similar in the second and third steps.

Conclusion:

The studies to be included in meta-analyses, particularly comparing ACEIs and ARBs, should be chosen carefully.