Amand F Schmidt1, Lucy S Pearce2, John T Wilkins3, John P Overington4, Aroon D Hingorani1, Juan P Casas5. 1. Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, 222 Euston Road, Room 206, London, UK, NW1 2DA. 2. Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1 E7HT. 3. The Department of Medicine (Cardiology) and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Suite 1400 680 N. Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 60611. 4. Medicines Discovery Catapult, 40 Churchway, Alderly Edge, UK, SK10 4TG. 5. Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, UK, NW1 2DA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for patients who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) may further reduce LDL-C, potentially reducing CVD risk as well. OBJECTIVES: Primary To quantify short-term (24 weeks), medium-term (one year), and long-term (five years) effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on lipid parameters and on the incidence of CVD. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cognitive function, and cancer. Additionally, to determine if specific patient subgroups were more or less likely to benefit from the use of PCSK9 inhibitors. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by systematically searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and screened the reference lists of included studies. We identified the studies included in this review through electronic literature searches conducted up to May 2016, and added three large trials published in March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up time of at least 24 weeks were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. When data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies with data on 67,237 participants (median age 61 years; range 52 to 64 years). Twelve trials randomised participants to alirocumab, three trials to bococizumab, one to RG7652, and four to evolocumab. Owing to the small number of trials using agents other than alirocumab, we did not differentiate between types of PCSK9 inhibitors used. We compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo (thirteen RCTs), ezetimibe (two RCTs) or ezetimibe and statins (five RCTs).Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 53.86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58.64 to 49.08; eight studies; 4782 participants; GRADE: moderate) at 24 weeks; compared with ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 30.20% (95% CI 34.18 to 26.23; two studies; 823 participants; GRADE: moderate), and compared with ezetimibe and statins, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 39.20% (95% CI 56.15 to 22.26; five studies; 5376 participants; GRADE: moderate).Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased the risk of CVD events, with a risk difference (RD) of 0.91% (odds ratio (OR) of 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.92; eight studies; 59,294 participants; GRADE: moderate). Compared with ezetimibe and statins, PCSK9 inhibitors appeared to have a stronger protective effect on CVD risk, although with considerable uncertainty (RD 1.06%, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; three studies; 4770 participants; GRADE: very low). No data were available for the ezetimibe only comparison. Compared with placebo, PCSK9 probably had little or no effect on mortality (RD 0.03%, OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 12 studies; 60,684 participants; GRADE: moderate). Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors increased the risk of any adverse events (RD 1.54%, OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.12; 13 studies; 54,204 participants; GRADE: low). Similar effects were observed for the comparison of ezetimibe and statins: RD 3.70%, OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34; four studies; 5376 participants; GRADE: low. Clinical event data were unavailable for the ezetimibe only comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Over short-term to medium-term follow-up, PCSK9 inhibitors reduced LDL-C. Studies with medium-term follow-up time (longest median follow-up recorded was 26 months) reported that PCSK9 inhibitors (compared with placebo) decreased CVD risk but may have increased the risk of any adverse events (driven by SPIRE-1 and -2 trials). Available evidence suggests that PCSK9 inhibitor use probably leads to little or no difference in mortality. Evidence on relative efficacy and safety when PCSK9 inhibitors were compared with active treatments was of low to very low quality (GRADE); follow-up times were short and events were few. Large trials with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate PCSK9 inhibitors versus active treatments as well as placebo. Owing to the predominant inclusion of high-risk patients in these studies, applicability of results to primary prevention is limited. Finally, estimated risk differences indicate that PCSK9 inhibitors only modestly change absolute risks (often to less than 1%).
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for patients who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) may further reduce LDL-C, potentially reducing CVD risk as well. OBJECTIVES: Primary To quantify short-term (24 weeks), medium-term (one year), and long-term (five years) effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on lipid parameters and on the incidence of CVD. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cognitive function, and cancer. Additionally, to determine if specific patient subgroups were more or less likely to benefit from the use of PCSK9 inhibitors. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by systematically searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and screened the reference lists of included studies. We identified the studies included in this review through electronic literature searches conducted up to May 2016, and added three large trials published in March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up time of at least 24 weeks were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. When data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies with data on 67,237 participants (median age 61 years; range 52 to 64 years). Twelve trials randomised participants to alirocumab, three trials to bococizumab, one to RG7652, and four to evolocumab. Owing to the small number of trials using agents other than alirocumab, we did not differentiate between types of PCSK9 inhibitors used. We compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo (thirteen RCTs), ezetimibe (two RCTs) or ezetimibe and statins (five RCTs).Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 53.86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58.64 to 49.08; eight studies; 4782 participants; GRADE: moderate) at 24 weeks; compared with ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 30.20% (95% CI 34.18 to 26.23; two studies; 823 participants; GRADE: moderate), and compared with ezetimibe and statins, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 39.20% (95% CI 56.15 to 22.26; five studies; 5376 participants; GRADE: moderate).Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased the risk of CVD events, with a risk difference (RD) of 0.91% (odds ratio (OR) of 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.92; eight studies; 59,294 participants; GRADE: moderate). Compared with ezetimibe and statins, PCSK9 inhibitors appeared to have a stronger protective effect on CVD risk, although with considerable uncertainty (RD 1.06%, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; three studies; 4770 participants; GRADE: very low). No data were available for the ezetimibe only comparison. Compared with placebo, PCSK9 probably had little or no effect on mortality (RD 0.03%, OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 12 studies; 60,684 participants; GRADE: moderate). Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors increased the risk of any adverse events (RD 1.54%, OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.12; 13 studies; 54,204 participants; GRADE: low). Similar effects were observed for the comparison of ezetimibe and statins: RD 3.70%, OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34; four studies; 5376 participants; GRADE: low. Clinical event data were unavailable for the ezetimibe only comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Over short-term to medium-term follow-up, PCSK9 inhibitors reduced LDL-C. Studies with medium-term follow-up time (longest median follow-up recorded was 26 months) reported that PCSK9 inhibitors (compared with placebo) decreased CVD risk but may have increased the risk of any adverse events (driven by SPIRE-1 and -2 trials). Available evidence suggests that PCSK9 inhibitor use probably leads to little or no difference in mortality. Evidence on relative efficacy and safety when PCSK9 inhibitors were compared with active treatments was of low to very low quality (GRADE); follow-up times were short and events were few. Large trials with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate PCSK9 inhibitors versus active treatments as well as placebo. Owing to the predominant inclusion of high-risk patients in these studies, applicability of results to primary prevention is limited. Finally, estimated risk differences indicate that PCSK9 inhibitors only modestly change absolute risks (often to less than 1%).
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Jarett D Berry; Todd M Brown; Mercedes R Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni de Simone; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Kurt J Greenlund; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; P Michael Ho; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Mary M McDermott; James B Meigs; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Wayne D Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Randall S Stafford; Tanya N Turan; Melanie B Turner; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Harold Bays; Daniel Gaudet; Robert Weiss; Juan Lima Ruiz; Gerald F Watts; Ioanna Gouni-Berthold; Jennifer Robinson; Jian Zhao; Corinne Hanotin; Stephen Donahue Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: A F Schmidt; O H Klungel; M Nielen; A de Boer; R H H Groenwold; A W Hoes Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Marc S Sabatine; Robert P Giugliano; Anthony C Keech; Narimon Honarpour; Stephen D Wiviott; Sabina A Murphy; Julia F Kuder; Huei Wang; Thomas Liu; Scott M Wasserman; Peter S Sever; Terje R Pedersen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eliano Pio Navarese; Michalina Kolodziejczak; Volker Schulze; Paul A Gurbel; Udaya Tantry; Yingfeng Lin; Maximilian Brockmeyer; David E Kandzari; Julia M Kubica; Ralph B D'Agostino; Jacek Kubica; Massimo Volpe; Stefan Agewall; Dean J Kereiakes; Malte Kelm Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel I Chasman; Franco Giulianini; Jean MacFadyen; Bryan J Barratt; Fredrik Nyberg; Paul M Ridker Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2012-02-13
Authors: Michel Farnier; Peter Jones; Randall Severance; Maurizio Averna; Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen; Helen M Colhoun; Yunling Du; Corinne Hanotin; Stephen Donahue Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Clapton S Dias; Adam J Shaywitz; Scott M Wasserman; Brian P Smith; Bing Gao; Dina S Stolman; Caroline P Crispino; Karen V Smirnakis; Maurice G Emery; Alexander Colbert; John P Gibbs; Marc W Retter; Blaire P Cooke; Stephen T Uy; Mark Matson; Evan A Stein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew E Moran; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Gregory A Roth; George A Mensah; Majid Ezzati; Abraham Flaxman; Christopher J L Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rebecca N Jerome; Jill M Pulley; Dan M Roden; Jana K Shirey-Rice; Lisa A Bastarache; Gordon R Bernard; Leeland B Ekstrom; William J Lancaster; Joshua C Denny Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Safi U Khan; Haris Riaz; Hammad Rahman; Muhammad U Khan; Muhammad Shahzeb Khan; Mohamad Alkhouli; Edo Kaluski; Thorsten M Leucker; Michael J Blaha Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Meena Jain; Glenn Carlson; William Cook; Linda Morrow; Marcella Petrone; Nicholas E White; Tao Wang; Jacqueline Naylor; Philip Ambery; Charles Lee; Boaz Hirshberg Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 10.122