Matthew Shun-Shin

Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117 411 patients

Objective To investigate the effects on cardiovascular outcomes of drug interventions that increase high density lipoprotein levels. Design Meta-analysis. Studies reviewed Therapeutic benefit of niacin, fibrates, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors on cardiovascular events (all cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke). Results 117 411 patients were randomised in a total of 39 trials. All interventions increased the levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol. No significant effect was seen on all cause mortality for niacin (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.15, P=0.59), fibrates (0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, P=0.66), or CETP inhibitors (1.16, 0.93 to 1.44, P=0.19); on coronary heart disease mortality for niacin (0.93, 0.76 to 1.12, P=0.44), fibrates (0.92, 0.81 to 1.04, P=0.19), or CETP inhibitors (1.00, 0.80 to 1.24, P=0.99); or on stroke outcomes for niacin (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22, P=0.72), fibrates (1.01, 0.90 to 1.13, P=0.84), or CETP inhibitors (1.14, 0.90 to 1.45, P=0.29). In studies with patients not receiving statins (before the statin era), niacin was associated with a significant reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.69, 0.56 to 0.85, P=0.0004). However, in studies where statins were already being taken, niacin showed no significant effect (0.96, 0.85 to 1.09, P=0.52). A significant difference was seen between these subgroups (P=0.007). A similar trend relating to non-fatal myocardial infarction was seen with fibrates: without statin treatment (0.78, 0.71 to 0.86, P<0.001) and with all or some patients taking statins (0.83, 0.69 to 1.01, P=0.07); P=0.58 for difference. Conclusions Neither niacin, fibrates, nor CETP inhibitors, three highly effective agents for increasing high density lipoprotein levels, reduced all cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients treated with statins. Although observational studies might suggest a simplistic hypothesis for high density lipoprotein cholesterol, that increasing the levels pharmacologically would generally reduce cardiovascular events, in the current era of widespread use of statins in dyslipidaemia, substantial trials of these three agents do not support this concept.

Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of β-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery

Background Current European and American guidelines recommend the perioperative initiation of a course of β-blockers in those at risk of cardiac events undergoing high- or intermediate-risk surgery or vascular surgery. The Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE) family of trials, the bedrock of evidence for this, are no longer secure. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of β-blockade on perioperative mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and hypotension in non-cardiac surgery using the secure data. Methods The randomised controlled trials of initiation of β-blockers before non-cardiac surgery were examined. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days or at discharge. The DECREASE trials were separately analysed. Results Nine secure trials totalling 10 529 patients, 291 of whom died, met the criteria. Initiation of a course of β-blockers before surgery caused a 27% risk increase in 30-day all-cause mortality (p=0.04). The DECREASE family of studies substantially contradict the meta-analysis of the secure trials on the effect of mortality (p=0.05 for divergence). In the secure trials, β-blockade reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.73, p=0.001) but increased stroke (RR 1.73, p=0.05) and hypotension (RR 1.51, p<0.00001). These results were dominated by one large trial. Conclusions Guideline bodies should retract their recommendations based on fictitious data without further delay. This should not be blocked by dispute over allocation of blame. The well-conducted trials indicate a statistically significant 27% increase in mortality from the initiation of perioperative β-blockade that guidelines currently recommend. Any remaining enthusiasts might best channel their energy into a further randomised trial which should be designed carefully and conducted honestly.

Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis.

Objective To investigate whether discrepancies in trials of use of bone marrow stem cells in patients with heart disease account for the variation in reported effect size in improvement of left ventricular function. Design Identification and counting of factual discrepancies in trial reports, and sample size weighted regression against therapeutic effect size. Meta-analysis of trials that provided sufficient information. Data sources PubMed and Embase from inception to April 2013. Eligibility for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of autologous bone marrow stem cells for heart disease on mean left ventricular ejection fraction. Results There were over 600 discrepancies in 133 reports from 49 trials. There was a significant association between the number of discrepancies and the reported increment in EF with bone marrow stem cell therapy (Spearman’s r=0.4, P=0.005). Trials with no discrepancies were a small minority (five trials) and showed a mean EF effect size of −0.4%. The 24 trials with 1-10 discrepancies showed a mean effect size of 2.1%. The 12 with 11-20 discrepancies showed a mean effect of size 3.0%. The three with 21-30 discrepancies showed a mean effect size of 5.7%. The high discrepancy group, comprising five trials with over 30 discrepancies each, showed a mean effect size of 7.7%. Conclusions Avoiding discrepancies is difficult but is important because discrepancy count is related to effect size. The mechanism is unknown but should be explored in the design of future trials because in the five trials without discrepancies the effect of bone marrow stem cell therapy on ejection fraction is zero.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Symptomatic relief is the primary goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angina and is commonly observed clinically. However, there is no evidence from blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trials to show its efficacy. METHODS ORBITA is a blinded, multicentre randomised trial of PCI versus a placebo procedure for angina relief that was done at five study sites in the UK. We enrolled patients with severe (≥70%) single-vessel stenoses. After enrolment, patients received 6 weeks of medication optimisation. Patients then had pre-randomisation assessments with cardiopulmonary exercise testing, symptom questionnaires, and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure by use of an automated online randomisation tool. After 6 weeks of follow-up, the assessments done before randomisation were repeated at the final assessment. The primary endpoint was difference in exercise time increment between groups. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and the study population contained all participants who underwent randomisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593. FINDINGS ORBITA enrolled 230 patients with ischaemic symptoms. After the medication optimisation phase and between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 11, 2017, 200 patients underwent randomisation, with 105 patients assigned PCI and 95 assigned the placebo procedure. Lesions had mean area stenosis of 84·4% (SD 10·2), fractional flow reserve of 0·69 (0·16), and instantaneous wave-free ratio of 0·76 (0·22). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of exercise time increment between groups (PCI minus placebo 16·6 s, 95% CI -8·9 to 42·0, p=0·200). There were no deaths. Serious adverse events included four pressure-wire related complications in the placebo group, which required PCI, and five major bleeding events, including two in the PCI group and three in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure. The efficacy of invasive procedures can be assessed with a placebo control, as is standard for pharmacotherapy. FUNDING NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, Philips Volcano, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre.

Removing the hype from hypertension

Symplicity HTN-3 illustrates the importance of randomisation and blinding for exciting new treatments

Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography–Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review

Importance Computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT) is a novel, noninvasive test for myocardial ischemia. Clinicians using FFR-CT must be able to interpret individual FFR-CT results to determine subsequent patient care. Objective To provide clinicians a means of interpreting individual FFR-CT results with respect to the range of invasive FFRs that this interpretation might likely represent. Evidence Review We performed a systematic review in accordance with guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A systematic search of MEDLINE (January 1, 2011, to 2016, week 2) and EMBASE (January 1, 2011, to 2016, week 2) was performed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT. Title words used were computed tomography or computed tomographic and fractional flow reserve or FFR. Results were limited to publications in peer-reviewed journals. Duplicate studies and abstracts from scientific meetings were removed. All of the retrieved studies, including references, were reviewed. Findings There were 908 vessels from 536 patients in 5 studies included in the analysis. A total of 365 (68.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 63.2 (9.5) years. The overall per-vessel diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT was 81.9% (95% CI, 79.4%-84.4%). For vessels with FFR-CT values below 0.60, 0.60 to 0.70, 0.70 to 0.80, 0.80 to 0.90, and above 0.90, diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT was 86.4% (95% CI, 78.0%-94.0%), 74.7% (95% CI, 71.9%-77.5%), 46.1% (95% CI, 42.9%-49.3%), 87.3% (95% CI, 85.1%-89.5%), and 97.9% (95% CI, 97.9%-98.8%), respectively. The 82% (overall) diagnostic accuracy threshold was met for FFR-CT values lower than 0.63 or above 0.83. More stringent 95% and 98% diagnostic accuracy thresholds were met for FFR-CT values lower than 0.53 or above 0.93 and lower than 0.47 or above 0.99, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance The diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT varies markedly across the spectrum of disease. This analysis allows clinicians to interpret the diagnostic accuracy of individual FFR-CT results. In combination with patient-specific factors, clinicians can use FFR-CT to judge when the cost and risk of an invasive angiogram may safely be avoided.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention of death in left ventricular dysfunction with and without ischaemic heart disease: a meta-analysis of 8567 patients in the 11 trials

Abstract Aims Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are established therapy for reducing mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and ischaemic heart disease (IHD). However, their efficacy in patients without IHD has been controversial. We undertook a meta-analysis of the totality of the evidence. Methods and results We systematically identified all RCTs comparing ICD vs. no ICD in primary prevention. Eligible RCTs were those that recruited patients with left ventricular dysfunction, reported all-cause mortality, and presented their results stratified by the presence of IHD (or recruited only those with or without). Our primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. We identified 11 studies enrolling 8567 participants with left ventricular dysfunction, including 3128 patients without IHD and 5439 patients with IHD. In patients without IHD, ICD therapy reduced mortality by 24% (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90, P = 0.001). In patients with IHD, ICD implantation (at a dedicated procedure), also reduced mortality by 24% (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02). Conclusions Until now, it has never been explicitly stated that the patients without IHD in COMPANION showed significant survival benefit from adding ICD therapy (to a background of CRT). Even before DANISH, meta-analysis of patients without ischaemic heart disease already showed reduced mortality. DANISH is consistent with these data. With a significant 24% mortality reduction in both aetiologies, it may no longer be necessary to distinguish between them when deciding on primary prevention ICD implantation.

Quantifying the 3 Biases That Lead to Unintentional Overestimation of the Blood Pressure–Lowering Effect of Renal Denervation

Background—Studies of renal denervation report disparate results. Meta-analysis by trial design may allow quantitative estimation of sources and magnitude of biases in denervation studies. Methods and Results—One hundred forty nonrandomized, 6 randomized open-label, and 2 randomized blinded studies were analyzed for 2 outcomes: (1) blood pressure changes for nonrandomized, open-label randomized, and blinded studies; and (2) quantification of 3 biases potentially contributing to apparent antihypertensive effects: (a) regression to the mean, (b) asymmetrical data handling, and (c) true blood pressure drops caused by something other than the tested therapy (confounding). Nonrandomized studies and open-label randomized trials reported large reductions in office blood pressure of 23.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.0 to 25.3) and 29.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 25.2 to 33.1 mm Hg), respectively. They reported smaller reductions in ambulatory blood pressures (11.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, 10.0 to 12.4). The blinded trials found no significant reduction in blood pressure (2.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, −0.4 to 6.3). Analyses of these data indicate the magnitude of the 3 potential sources of bias to be regression to the mean, −1.01 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.24 to −6.27); asymmetrical data handling, −10.8 mm Hg (95% CI, −8.77 to −12.87); and confounding, −8.3 mm Hg (95% CI, −4.73 to −11.83). Conclusions—Increasingly bias-resistant trial designs report effect sizes of decreasing magnitude. This disparity may be caused by asymmetrical data handling and confounding (eg, increased drug adherence). If these differences are caused by trial design and not by some other differences in patients or procedures, which happen to match the trial design, then randomization alone is not enough: blinding is also needed. This has broad implications across trials of medications and devices.

Why Even More Clinical Research Studies May Be False: Effect of Asymmetrical Handling of Clinically Unexpected Values

Background In medical practice, clinically unexpected measurements might be quite properly handled by the remeasurement, removal, or reclassification of patients. If these habits are not prevented during clinical research, how much of each is needed to sway an entire study? Methods and Results Believing there is a difference between groups, a well-intentioned clinician researcher addresses unexpected values. We tested how much removal, remeasurement, or reclassification of patients would be needed in most cases to turn an otherwise-neutral study positive. Remeasurement of 19 patients out of 200 per group was required to make most studies positive. Removal was more powerful: just 9 out of 200 was enough. Reclassification was most powerful, with 5 out of 200 enough. The larger the study, the smaller the proportion of patients needing to be manipulated to make the study positive: the percentages needed to be remeasured, removed, or reclassified fell from 45%, 20%, and 10% respectively for a 20 patient-per-group study, to 4%, 2%, and 1% for an 800 patient-per-group study. Dot-plots, but not bar-charts, make the perhaps-inadvertent manipulations visible. Detection is possible using statistical methods such as the Tadpole test. Conclusions Behaviours necessary for clinical practice are destructive to clinical research. Even small amounts of selective remeasurement, removal, or reclassification can produce false positive results. Size matters: larger studies are proportionately more vulnerable. If observational studies permit selective unblinded enrolment, malleable classification, or selective remeasurement, then results are not credible. Clinical research is very vulnerable to “remeasurement, removal, and reclassification”, the 3 evil Rs.

Association Between Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors, Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors With All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance The comparative clinical efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes is unknown. Objective To compare the efficacies of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors on mortality and cardiovascular end points using network meta-analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and published meta-analyses from inception through October 11, 2017. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials enrolling participants with type 2 diabetes and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included, for which SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors were compared with either each other or placebo or no treatment. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were screened by 1 investigator and extracted in duplicate by 2 investigators. A Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome: all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes: cardiovascular (CV) mortality, heart failure (HF) events, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, and stroke; safety end points: adverse events and hypoglycemia. Results This network meta-analysis of 236 trials randomizing 176 310 participants found SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute risk difference [RD], −1.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.71 to 0.89]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, −0.6%; HR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.81 to 0.94]) were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality than the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, −0.9%; HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.68 to 0.90]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, −0.5%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.96]) were associated with lower mortality than were DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors were not significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (absolute RD, 0.1%; HR, 1.02 [95% CrI, 0.94 to 1.11]) than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, −0.8%; HR, 0.79 [95% CrI, 0.69 to 0.91]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, −0.5%; HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.94]) were significantly associated with lower CV mortality than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors were significantly associated with lower rates of HF events (absolute RD, −1.1%; HR, 0.62 [95% CrI, 0.54 to 0.72]) and MI (absolute RD, −0.6%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.97]) than were the control groups. GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events leading to trial withdrawal than were SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, 5.8%; HR, 1.80 [95% CrI, 1.44 to 2.25]) and DPP-4 inhibitors (absolute RD, 3.1%; HR, 1.93 [95% CrI, 1.59 to 2.35]). Conclusions and Relevance In this network meta-analysis, the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was associated with lower mortality than DPP-4 inhibitors or placebo or no treatment. Use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with lower mortality than placebo or no treatment.