Lipid Lowering Therapy, Low-Density Lipoprotein Level and Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage - A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association of lipid lowering therapy and intracerebral hemorrhage risk is controversial. METHODS: We performed a cumulative meta-analysis of lipid lowering trials that reported intracerebral hemorrhage. Statin, fibrate, ezetimibe, PCSK9, and CETP trials were included. We explored whether the association of lipid lowering therapy and risk of intracerebral hemorrhage may vary by baseline low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, mean change in LDL or baseline cardiovascular risk of population. RESULTS: Among 39 trials (287,651 participants), lipid lowering therapy was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in primary and secondary prevention trials combined (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], .98-1.28). Lipid lowering was associated with an increased risk of ICH in secondary prevention trials (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00-1.38), but not in primary prevention trials (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, .78-1.30), but the test for interaction was not significant (P for interaction = .31). Meta-regression of baseline LDL or difference in LDL reduction between active and control did not explain significant heterogeneity between studies for ICH risk. Of 1000 individuals treated for 1 year for secondary prevention, we estimated 9.17 (95% CI, 5.78-12.66) fewer ischemic strokes and .48 (95% CI, .06-1.02) more ICH, and a net reduction of 8.69 in all stroke per 1000 person-years. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of lipid lowering therapy in prevention of ischemic stroke greatly exceed the risk of ICH. Concern about ICH should not discourage stroke clinicians from prescribing lipid lowering therapy for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.

Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Background A run-in period may increase adherence to intervention and reduce loss to follow-up. Whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effects is unknown. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis comparing treatment effects from 11 systematic reviews of cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period with matched trials not using a run-in period. We matched run-in with non-run-in trials by population, intervention, control, and outcome. We calculated a ratio of relative risks (RRRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events, and the primary analysis was a matched comparison of clinical trials using a run-in period versus without a run-in period. We identified 66 run-in trials and 111 non-run-in trials (n=668 901). On meta-analysis there was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of treatment effect between run-in trials (relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.80-0.87]) compared with non-run-in trials (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]; RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]). There was no significant difference in the RRR for secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (RRR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91-1.03]) or medication discontinuation because of adverse events (RRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.21]). Post hoc exploratory univariate meta-regression showed that on average a run-in period is associated with a statistically significant difference in treatment effect (RRR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]) for cardiovascular composite outcome, but this was not statistically significant on multivariable meta-regression analysis (RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]). Conclusions The use of a run-in period was not associated with a difference in the magnitude of treatment effect among cardiovascular prevention trials.

Aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in individuals without cardiovascular disease-A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of aspirin for primary prevention of stroke are uncertain. METHODS: We performed a cumulative meta-analysis of trials investigating aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a focus on stroke. We assessed the effects of aspirin on non-fatal stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and an analysis of net clinical effect, in populations without a history of clinical or subclinical cardiovascular disease. SUMMARY OF REVIEW RESULTS: Among 11 trials (157,054 participants), aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in non-fatal stroke (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04) but was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.56). Aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.03) or cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.03). Aspirin was associated with a reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94) and an increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.35). Using equal weighting for non-fatal events and major bleeding, we observed no net clinical benefit with aspirin use for primary prevention. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis reports no benefit of aspirin for primary stroke prevention.