[Does aspirin have a place in primary cardiovascular prevention by the polypill ? Simulation study on a realistic virtual population]. / L'aspirine a-t-elle une place dans la prévention cardiovasculaire primaire par la polypill ? Étude de simulation sur une population virtuelle réaliste.

BACKGROUND: The polypill strategy could become widely accepted in cardiovascular prevention due to reduced costs and its simplicity, which promote compliance. Aspirin is often included as a component of the polypill for primary prevention, but three powerful recent trials failed to show any favorable net benefit even in high-risk subgroups. Our objective is to estimate the net benefit associated with aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: We simulated the impact of different polypill compositions combining pravastatin, ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, with or without aspirin, on a realistic French virtual population between 35 and 65 years old. We assessed how this impact on myocardial infarction and stroke varied according to gender, diabetes, and arterial hypertension. We identified the subgroup of individuals whose specific benefit from aspirin was greater than twice the risk of serious bleeding it induced. RESULTS: The absolute benefit associated with aspirin was reduced by co-prescriptions. No subgroup of women benefited from aspirin, and the subgroup of women with a clear net benefit represented 128 women out of 529,421. Men at high risk of cardiovascular death, or with diabetes and hypertension, had a benefit from aspirin exceeding the risk of bleeding induced, but this risk represented more than half of the benefit. No subgroup analyzed did show a benefit greater than twice the risk of bleeding. The proportion of men whose expected benefit from aspirin was greater than twice the risk of bleeding represented 3% of all men. An optimal polypill strategy in primary prevention between the ages of 35 and 65, combining three drugs but not aspirin, can hope to save two out of three strokes and more than one out of two myocardial infarctions. It would prevent a major cardiovascular accident every 16 to 193 individuals treated according to the subgroups considered. CONCLUSION: Until proven otherwise, aspirin has only a limited place in individuals between 35 and 65 years without a cardiovascular history. We showed how simulating therapeutic strategies on a realistic virtual population could be used for best applying available evidence.

Do drugs interact together in cardiovascular prevention? A meta-analysis of powerful or factorial randomized controlled trials.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To explore whether preventive cardiovascular drugs (antihypertensive, antiplatelet, lipid lowering and hypoglycemic agents) interact together in cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Web of science™, Embase and Cochrane library for powerful randomized placebo-controlled trials (>1000 patients). We explored whether drug effect on major vascular events changed according to cross-exposure to other drug classes or to cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension or type 2 diabetes), through a meta-analysis of relative odds ratio computed by trial subgroups. A significant interaction was suggested from confidence intervals of the ratio of odds ratios, when they excluded neutral value of 1. RESULTS: In total, 14 trials with 178,398 patients were included. No significant interaction was observed between co-prescribed drugs or between these medications and type 2 diabetes/hypertension status. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis is the first one to evaluate drug-drug and drug-hypertension/type 2 diabetes status interactions in terms of cardiovascular risks: we did not observe any significant interaction. This indirectly reinforces the rationale of using several contrasted mechanisms to address cardiovascular prevention; and allows the combination effect prediction by a simple multiplication of their odds ratios. The limited availability of data reported or obtained from authors is a strong argument in favor of data sharing.

No benefits of statins for sudden cardiac death prevention in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Statins showed mixed results in heart failure (HF) patients. The benefits in major HF outcomes, including all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD), have always been discordant across systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We intended to systematically identify and appraise the available evidence that evaluated the effectiveness of statins in clinical outcomes for HF patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched, until April 28, 2016: Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science and EBM reviews (Cochrane DSR, ACP journal club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED), checked clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials and manually searched references of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We identified 24 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of statins for HF patients. All randomized clinical trials were assessed for risk of bias and pooled together in a meta-analysis. Pre-specified outcomes were sudden cardiac death, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS: Statins did not reduce sudden cardiac death (SCD) events in HF patients [relative risk (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.21], all-cause mortality [RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02] but significantly reduced hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HWHF) although modestly [RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94]. Nevertheless, estimated predictive intervals were insignificant in SCD, all-cause mortality and HWHF [RR, 0.54 to 1.63, 0.64 to 1.19, and 0.54 to 1.15], respectively. An important finding was the possible presence of publication bias, small-study effects and heterogeneity of the trials conducted in HF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Statins do not reduce sudden cardiac death, all-cause mortality, but may slightly decrease hospitalization for worsening heart failure in HF patients. The evaluation of the risk of biases suggested moderate quality of the published results. Until new evidence is available, this study supports the 2013 ACCF/AHA guidelines to not systematically prescribe statins in "only" HF patients, which should help avoid unnecessary polypharmacy.

A sudden death risk score specifically for hypertension: based on 25 648 individual patient data from six randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To construct a sudden death risk score specifically for hypertension (HYSUD) patients with or without cardiovascular history. METHODS: Data were collected from six randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatments with 8044 women and 17 604 men differing in age ranges and blood pressure eligibility criteria. In total, 345 sudden deaths (1.35%) occurred during a mean follow-up of 5.16 years. Risk factors of sudden death were examined using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusted on trials. The model was transformed to an integer system, with points added for each factor according to its association with sudden death risk. RESULTS: Antihypertensive treatment was not associated with a reduction of the sudden death risk and had no interaction with other factors, allowing model development on both treatment and placebo groups. A risk score of sudden death in 5 years was built with seven significant risk factors: age, sex, SBP, serum total cholesterol, cigarette smoking, diabetes, and history of myocardial infarction. In terms of discrimination performance, HYSUD model was adequate with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 77.74% (confidence interval 95%, 74.13-81.35) for the derivation set, of 77.46% (74.09-80.83) for the validation set, and of 79.17% (75.94-82.40) for the whole population. CONCLUSION: Our work provides a simple risk-scoring system for sudden death prediction in hypertension, using individual data from six randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatments. HYSUD score could help assessing a hypertensive individual's risk of sudden death and optimizing preventive therapeutic strategies for these patients.

Impact of Aldosterone Antagonists on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in Heart Failure and Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a severe burden of modern medicine. Aldosterone antagonist is publicized as effective in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or post myocardial infarction (MI). Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of AAs on mortality including SCD, hospitalization admission and several common adverse effects. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and clinicaltrial.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assigning AAs in patients with HF or post MI through May 2015. The comparator included standard medication or placebo, or both. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Event rates were compared using a random effects model. Prospective RCTs of AAs with durations of at least 8 weeks were selected if they included at least one of the following outcomes: SCD, all-cause/cardiovascular mortality, all-cause/cardiovascular hospitalization and common side effects (hyperkalemia, renal function degradation and gynecomastia). RESULTS: Data from 19,333 patients enrolled in 25 trials were included. In patients with HF, this treatment significantly reduced the risk of SCD by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03); all-cause mortality by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88, p<0.00001) and cardiovascular death by 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89, p<0.00001). In patients with post-MI, the matching reduced risks were 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03), 15% (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95, p = 0.003) and 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94, p = 0.003), respectively. Concerning both subgroups, the relative risks respectively decreased by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; p = 0.002) for SCD, 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88, p < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality and 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.0001) for cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with AAs. As well, hospitalizations were significantly reduced, while common adverse effects were significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Aldosterone antagonists appear to be effective in reducing SCD and other mortality events, compared with placebo or standard medication in patients with HF and/or after a MI.