The effect of adding ezetimibe to rosuvastatin on renal function in patients undergoing elective vascular surgery

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Comparison of Renal Effects of Ezetimibe-Statin Combination versus Statin Monotherapy: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis

Neither lowering of blood lipid levels nor treatment with statins definitively improves renal outcomes. Ezetimibe, a non-statin antilipidemic agent, is known to not only decrease blood lipid levels but also reduce inflammatory response and activate autophagy. We evaluated the effect of adding ezetimibe to a statin on renal outcome compared with statin monotherapy by analyzing longitudinal data of 4537 patients treated with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (S + E) or simvastatin 20 mg alone (S) for more than 180 days. A propensity-score-based process was used to match baseline characteristics, medical history, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between S + E and S groups. Changes in serum creatinine and incidence of renal events, defined as doubling of serum creatinine to ≥1.5 mg/dL or occurrence of end-stage renal disease after the first day of treatment initiation, were compared between the groups. Among 3104 well-matched patients with a median follow-up of 4.2 years, the S + E group showed a significantly lower risk of renal events than the S group (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P = 0.032). In addition, the S + E group tended to preserve renal function compared with the S group throughout follow-up, as assessed by serum creatinine changes (P-values for time-group interactions <0.001). These data support the beneficial effects on renal function when combining ezetimibe with a statin.

Effect of different types of statins on kidney function decline and proteinuria: a network meta-analysis

Previous studies showed that statins reduce the progression of kidney function decline and proteinuria, but whether specific types of statins are more beneficial than others remains unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate which statin most effectively reduces kidney function decline and proteinuria. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database until July 13, 2018, and included 43 RCTs (>110,000 patients). We performed a pairwise random-effects meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis according to a frequentist approach. We assessed network inconsistency, publication bias, and estimated for each statin the probability of being the best treatment. Considerable heterogeneity was present among the included studies. In pairwise meta-analyses, 1-year use of statins versus control reduced kidney function decline by 0.61 (95%-CI: 0.27; 0.95) mL/min/1.73 m² and proteinuria with a standardized mean difference of -0.58 (95%-CI:-0.88; -0.29). The network meta-analysis for the separate endpoints showed broad confidence intervals due to the small number available RCTs for each individual comparison. In conclusion, 1-year statin use versus control attenuated the progression of kidney function decline and proteinuria. Due to the imprecision of individual comparisons, results were inconclusive as to which statin performs best with regard to renal outcome.

Ezetimibe for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality events

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity, and high levels of blood cholesterol are thought to be the major modifiable risk factors for CVD. The use of statins is the preferred treatment strategy for the prevention of CVD, but some people at high-risk for CVD are intolerant to statin therapy or unable to achieve their treatment goals with the maximal recommended doses of statin. Ezetimibe is a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, whether it has a positive effect on CVD events remains uncertain. Results from clinical studies are inconsistent and a thorough evaluation of its efficacy and safety for the prevention of CVD and mortality is necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe for the prevention of CVD and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 27 June 2018, and two clinical trial registry platforms on 11 July 2018. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ezetimibe versus placebo or ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone in adults, with or without CVD, and which had a follow-up of at least 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and contacted trialists to obtain missing data. We performed statistical analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs randomising 23,499 participants. All included studies assessed effects of ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs compared with other lipid-modifying drugs alone or plus placebo. Our findings were driven by the largest study (IMPROVE-IT), which had weights ranging from 41.5% to 98.4% in the different meta-analyses.Ezetimibe with statins probably reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with statins alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.98; a decrease from 284/1000 to 267/1000, 95% CI 256 to 278; 21,727 participants; 10 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting all-cause mortality used ezetimibe with statin or fenofibrate and found they have little or no effect on this outcome (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 21,222 participants; 8 studies; high-quality evidence). Adding ezetimibe to statins probably reduces the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; a decrease from 105/1000 to 92/1000, 95% CI 85 to 100; 21,145 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence) and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; a decrease 32/1000 to 27/1000, 95% CI 23 to 31; 21,205 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting cardiovascular mortality added ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate, probably having little or no effect on this outcome (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 19457 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The need for coronary revascularisation might be reduced by adding ezetimibe to statin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; a decrease from 196/1000 to 184/1000, 95% 175 to 194; 21,323 participants; 7 studies); however, no difference in coronary revascularisation rate was observed when a sensitivity analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias.In terms of safety, adding ezetimibe to statins may make little or no difference in the risk of hepatopathy (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.35; 20,687 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether ezetimibe increase or decrease the risk of myopathy (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.38; 20,581 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence) and rhabdomyolysis, given the wide CIs and low event rate. Little or no difference in the risk of cancer, gallbladder-related disease and discontinuation due to adverse events were observed between treatment groups. For serum lipids, adding ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate might further reduce the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and likely increase the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; however, substantial heterogeneity was detected in most analyses.None of the included studies reported on health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that ezetimibe has modest beneficial effects on the risk of CVD endpoints, primarily driven by a reduction in non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke, but it has little or no effect on clinical fatal endpoints. The cardiovascular benefit of ezetimibe might involve the reduction of LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether ezetimibe increases the risk of adverse events due to the low and very low quality of the evidence. The evidence for beneficial effects was mainly obtained from individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD, predominantly with acute coronary syndrome) administered ezetimibe plus statins. However, there is limited evidence regarding the role of ezetimibe in primary prevention and the effects of ezetimibe monotherapy in the prevention of CVD, and these topics thus requires further investigation.

Pharmacological treatment of vascular risk factors for reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with atherosclerotic occlusive arterial disease. However, the role of prophylaxis in individuals with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. Several studies have shown that despite successful repair, those people with AAA have a poorer rate of survival than healthy controls. People with AAA have an increased prevalence of coronary heart disease and risk of cardiovascular events. Despite this association, little is known about the effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis in reducing cardiovascular risk in people with AAA. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term effectiveness of antiplatelet, antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medication in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (14 April 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 3) and trials registries (14 April 2016) and We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people with AAA were randomly allocated to one prophylactic treatment versus another, a different regimen of the same treatment, a placebo, or no treatment were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and completed quality assessment and data extraction. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review, therefore we were unable to perform meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies met the inclusion criteria for this update. We included one randomised controlled trial in the review. A subgroup of 227 participants with AAA received either metoprolol (N = 111) or placebo (N = 116). There was no clear evidence that metoprolol reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.41), cardiovascular death (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76), AAA-related death (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.92) or increased nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.57) 30 days postoperatively. Furthermore, at six months postoperatively, estimated effects were compatible with benefit and harm for all-cause mortality (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.95), cardiovascular death (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.39) and nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.35). Adverse drug effects were reported for the whole study population and were not available for the subgroup of participants with AAA. We considered the study to be at a generally low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to low. We downgraded the quality of evidence for imprecision as only one study with a small number of participants was available, the number of events was small and the result was consistent with benefit and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited number of included trials, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of cardiovascular prophylaxis in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with AAA. Further good-quality randomised controlled trials that examine many types of prophylaxis with long-term follow-up are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Effects of atorvastatin on renal function in patients with dyslipidemia and chronic kidney disease: assessment of clinical usefulness in CKD patients with atorvastatin (ASUCA) trial

Background

Dyslipidemia is a risk factor for the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). While conventional lipid lowering therapy provides a benefit to CKD management, the effect of statins on eGFR remains unclear.

Methods

A prospective, multi-center, open-labeled, randomized trial. Total of 349 CKD patients with hyperlipidemia were randomized into 2 groups, and followed for 2 years. Group A included patients who were treated with atorvastatin. Group C were treated with conventional lipid lowering drugs other than statin. Primary endpoint was changes in eGFR. Secondary endpoints included changes in urinary albumin excretion, serum LDL-C, serum triglyceride, cardio-vascular events and all-cause mortality.

Results

As the primary endpoint, eGFR decreased by 2.3 ml/min/1.73 m² in Group A and by 2.6 ml/min/1.73 m² in Group C, indicating that there was no difference in change of eGFR between the two groups. As secondary endpoints, atorvastatin succeeded to reduce serum LDL-C level significantly and rapidly, but conventional therapy did not. In fact, mean LDL-C level did not reach the target level of 100 mg/dl in Group C. Serum triglyceride was lowered only by atorvastatin, but not conventional drugs. The number of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality did not differ between in two groups.

Conclusion

The ASUCA (Assessment of Clinical Usefulness in CKD Patients with Atorvastatin) trial demonstrated that atorvastatin failed to exhibit reno-protections compared to conventional therapy in Japanese patients with dyslipidemia and CKD. It would be due in part to the ability of atorvastatin to more potently reduce serum LDL and triglycerides compared to conventional therapy.