scholarly journals Comparative Effect of Statins and Omega-3 Supplementation on Cardiovascular Events: Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis of 63 Randomized Controlled Trials Including 264,516 Participants

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 2218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung Hoang ◽  
Jeongseon Kim

Statins and omega-3 supplementation have been recommended for cardiovascular disease prevention, but comparative effects have not been investigated. This study aimed to summarize current evidence of the effect of statins and omega-3 supplementation on cardiovascular events. A meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the effects of specific statins and omega-3 supplementation compared with controls. Overall, the statin group showed significant risk reductions in total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke; however, omega-3 supplementation significantly decreased the risks of coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction only, in the comparison with the control group. In comparison with omega-3 supplementation, pravastatin significantly reduced the risks of total cardiovascular disease (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.72–0.91), coronary heart disease (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60–0.94), and myocardial infarction (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.55–0.94). Risks of total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke in the atorvastatin group were statistically lower than those in the omega-3 group, with RRs (95% CIs) of 0.80 (0.73–0.88), 0.64 (0.50–0.82), 0.75 (0.60–0.93), and 0.81 (0.66–0.99), respectively. The findings of this study suggest that pravastatin and atorvastatin may be more beneficial than omega-3 supplementation in reducing the risk of total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and myocardial infarction.

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. E863-E867
Author(s):  
Chenchao Fu ◽  
Xin Wu

Background: The efficacy of colchicine administration for coronary heart disease remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of colchicine administration versus placebo on treatment efficacy for coronary heart disease. Methods: We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through May 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of colchicine administration versus placebo in patients with coronary heart disease. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Results: Six RCTs involving 6,321 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control groups for coronary heart disease, colchicine intervention can significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio [OR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.92; P = .006), but revealed no obvious impact on mortality (OR=0.93; 95% CI=0.63 to 1.36; P = .69), serious adverse events (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.61; P = .41), or restenosis (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.64; P = .95). Conclusions: Colchicine treatment may be effective to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 384-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Li ◽  
Ling Li

Background/Aims: Previous studies have reported inconsistent results regarding the treatment effects of intensive blood pressure (IBP) control in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes. We conducted this cumulative meta-analysis to evaluate the treatment effects of IBP control on cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from the date of their inception to October 2017, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the treatment effects of IBP control by using a random-effects model. Results: The final analysis included 20 RCTs involving 56,687 individuals. The summary RRs indicated that IBP control treatment significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77–0.94; p = 0.001), including myocardial infarction (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76–1.00; p = 0.044), stroke (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66–0.89; p < 0.001), and albuminuria (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.84–0.97; p = 0.007). However, IBP control had no significant effect on heart failure (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62–1.03; p = 0.077), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.81–1.02; p = 0.112), cardiac death (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.75–1.12; p = 0.390), non-cardiac death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86–1.12; p = 0.773), end-stage renal disease (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77–1.06; p = 0.203), and retinopathy (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.66–1.00; p = 0.052). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that IBP control plays a beneficial role in the prevention of some major cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and albuminuria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document