C-reactive protein and future cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with angina pectoris: the extended TRUTH study

Effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy on mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can quickly restore myocardial perfusion after acute coronary syndrome. Whether and which lipid-lowering regimens are effective in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and mortality risk after PCI remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the benefits of different lipid-lowering regimens on the risk of MACEs and mortality in the post-PCI population by network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Public databases, including PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to August 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on lipid-lowering regimens in post-PCI populations were included and analysed. The outcomes were the incidence of all-cause mortality and MACEs, whether reported as dichotomous variables or as HRs.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs were included. For MACEs, alirocumab plus rosuvastatin (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.44), evolocumab plus ezetimibe and statins (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.59), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus pitavastatin (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.96) and icosapent ethyl plus statins (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86) had significant advantages and relatively high rankings. For mortality, rosuvastatin (OR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.84), ezetimibe plus statins (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.89) and icosapent ethyl plus statins (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96) had significant advantages compared with the control.

CONCLUSION

EPA, especially icosapent ethyl, plus statins had a beneficial effect on reducing the risk of MACEs and mortality in post-PCI patients. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type-9 inhibitors plus statins were able to reduce the risk of MACEs, but the risk of mortality remained unclear.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018099600.

Preprocedural C-Reactive Protein Predicts Outcomes after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction a systematic meta-analysis

Risk assessment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is critical in order to provide adequate treatment. We performed a systematic meta-analysis to assess the predictive role of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We included 7 studies, out of 1,033 studies, with a total of 6,993 patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI, which were divided in the high or low CRP group, according to the validated cut-off values provided by the corresponding CRP assay. High CRP values were associated with increased in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality, in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). The pre-procedural CRP predicted in-hospital target vessel revascularization (TVR), but was not associated with acute/subacute and follow-up in-stent restenosis (ISR), and follow-up TVR. Thus, pre-procedural serum CRP could be a valuable predictor of global cardiovascular risk, rather than a predictor of stent-related complications in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. This biomarker might have the potential to improve the management of these high-risk patients.

Clinical relevance for lowering C-reactive protein with statins

The role of statins in the protection of atherosclerosis and reducting cardiovascular (CV) events is well established. On the other hand, the role of inflammation in the propagation and propensity to CV events has also been demonstrated. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) which is involved in the immunologic process of inflammation has received the interest for its use in screening and risk reclassification. However, evidence for its causal relationship with atherothrombosis is lacking, and even more, knowing that statins influence on the reduction of CRP levels, a relevant evidence of their clinical benefits in this regard is also lacking. This article reviews four different key points regarding the issue, to better understand the current state and application of the treatment with statins in order to achieve benefits from lowering CRP's levels regarding CV diseases: (1) the mechanisms of reduction of CRP levels by statins; (2) the role of statin-mediated CRP reduction in the atherosclerotic plaque regression; (3) the role in the prevention of CV diseases; and (4) the role in case of secondary prevention. With this basis, the reduction of CRP levels should be interpreted as a reduction of inflammatory burden thus its clinical benefits could be more interesting in secondary prevention. KEY MESSAGES It could be admitted a role of statin-mediated CRP diminution to reduce the rate of progression in atherosclerotic plaque. In general, and in the absence of specific clinical trials, the role of statins by lowering CRP and consequently, preventing cardiovascular events may be superior in case of secondary prevention because a more pronounced state of inflammation and regardless of its levels at baseline.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin in Reducing Concentration of C-Reactive Protein in Patients With Hyperlipidemia

We conducted a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials comparing the efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP). We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Elsevier databases until June 2014. Search terms included C-reactive protein or CRP, rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, randomized, randomly, and randomization; 13 trials (3798 patients) were included. Funnel plots for CRP were inspected to assess publication bias. The pooled analysis demonstrated the benefit of rosuvastatin over atorvastatin therapy for all 13 trials (mean difference [MD] = −0.11, which is standardized mean with no unit although the raw data before pooling is mg/L, 95% confidence interval −0.15 to −0.07, P < .0001) with no evidence of significant publication bias (I2 = 6.9%, P = .377). Subgroup analysis indicated a significant benefit of rosuvastatin over atorvastatin regarding the 1/1 dose ratio (MD = −0.14, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.06) and 1/2 dose ratio (MD= −0.11, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.05). Cumulative and influence analyses showed accuracy and stability for the estimation mentioned earlier. Our meta-analysis shows that rosuvastatin produces better reduction in CRP concentrations than atorvastatin at a dose ratio of 1/1 and 1/2 (rosuvastatin/atorvastatin), respectively.