Background The comparative effects of statins, ezetimibe with or without statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors remain unassessed. Design Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment groups. Methods Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (inception - September 2017). Results In network meta-analysis of 189,116 patients, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the best treatment for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (Surface Under Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA), 85%), myocardial infarction (SUCRA, 84%) and stroke (SUCRA, 80%). PCSK9 inhibitors reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with ezetimibe + statin (odds ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.55-0.95; Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria: moderate), statin (OR: 0.78; 95% CrI: 0.62-0.97; GRADE: moderate) and placebo (OR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.49-0.79; GRADE: high). The PCSK9 inhibitors were consistently superior to groups for major adverse cardiovascular event reduction in secondary prevention trials (SUCRA, 95%). Statins had the highest probability of having lowest rates of all-cause mortality (SUCRA, 82%) and cardiovascular mortality (SUCRA, 84%). Compared with placebo, statins reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88; 95% CrI: 0.83-0.94; GRADE: moderate) and cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.84; 95% CrI: 0.77-0.90; GRADE: high). For cardiovascular mortality, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the second best treatment (SUCRA, 78%) followed by ezetimibe + statin (SUCRA, 50%). Conclusion PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction and stroke, without having major safety concerns. Statins were ranked as the most effective therapy for reducing mortality.

Background and Purpose— The role of aspirin plus clopidogrel (A+C) therapy compared with aspirin monotherapy in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke (IS) or transient ischemic attack remains uncertain. We conducted this study to determine the optimal period of efficacy and safety of A+C compared with aspirin monotherapy. Methods— Ten randomized controlled trials (15 434 patients) were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (inception June 2018) comparing A+C with aspirin monotherapy in patients with transient ischemic attack or IS. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent IS, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality) and all-cause mortality. We stratified analysis based on the short- (≤1 month), intermediate- (≤3 month), and long-term (>3 month) A+C therapy. Effects were estimated as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. Results— A+C significantly reduced the risk of recurrent IS at short-term (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37–0.78) and intermediate-term (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58–0.90) durations. Similarly, major adverse cardiovascular event was significantly reduced by short-term (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60–0.78) and intermediate-term (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61–0.94) A+C therapy. However, long-term A+C did not yield beneficial effect in terms of recurrent IS (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63–1.04) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71–1.07). Intermediate-term (RR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.19–5.60) and long-term (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.36–2.56) A+C regimens significantly increased the risk of major bleeding as opposed to short-term A+C (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.91–3.62). Excessive all-cause mortality was limited to long-term A+C (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10–1.93). Conclusions— Short-term A+C is more effective and equally safe in comparison to aspirin alone in patients with acute IS or transient ischemic attack.

Background The comparative risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) among direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) remains unclear. Objective To determine the difference in risk of ICH between DOACs Methods Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Inception, 31 December 2017). Estimates were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CR.I) in Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), and OR with 95% confidence interval (CI) in traditional meta-analyses. Relative ranking probability of each group was generated based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results In NMA of 116 618 patients from 17 RCTs (apixaban = 19 495 patients, rivaroxaban = 14 157 patients, dabigatran = 16 074 patients, edoxaban = 11 652 patients, and comparator = 55 315 patients), all DOACs were safer than warfarin for risk of ICH. Dabigatran 110 mg ranked as the safest drug (SUCRA, 0.85) and reduced the risk of ICH by 56% compared to rivaroxaban (OR, 0.44; 95% Cr.I, 0.22-0.82). Pairwise meta-analysis validated these findings, showing that DOACs were safer than warfarin (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35-0.59). Subgroup analysis showed that the benefit was present when DOACs were used in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.58). Conclusion Dabigatran 110 mg may be the safest choice among any anticoagulant regarding risk of ICH. Both dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg were safer than rivaroxaban.

The significance of adding new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of adding NOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) to single antiplatelet agent (SAP) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ACS. Seven randomized controlled trials were selected using PubMed or MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane library (inception to August 2017). The summary measure was random effects hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary safety outcome was clinically significant bleeding. The secondary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality). In 31,574 patients, addition of NOAC to SAP did not increase the risk of clinically significant bleeding (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.20, p = 0.31); however, the risk of clinically significant bleeding was significantly increased with NOAC plus DAPT (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.87, p < 0.001). NOACs had no statistically beneficial effect on MACE when used with SAP (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04, p = 0.10); however, a modest reduction in MACE was observed when NOACs were combined with DAPT (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93, p < 0.001). In conclusion, in patients with ACS, the addition of NOAC to DAPT resulted in increased risk of clinically significant bleeding, whereas only a modest reduction in MACE was achieved. The addition of NOACs to SAP did not result in significant reduction of MACE or increase in clinically significant bleeding.

The evidence to support implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in subjects with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is not robust. This meta‐analysis intends to assess the impact of routine ICD implantation for primary prevention of mortality due to SCD in NICM based on all the published randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Six RCTs were selected using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to December 2016. Outcomes were calculated as random‐effects relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Patients were randomized to ICD arm and control arm (usual care, medical treatment, and anti‐arrhythmic drugs). ICD significantly reduced all‐cause mortality in NICM patients (RR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.56‐0.97, P = .03, I2 = 40). Mortality benefit was achieved due to a significant reduction in sudden cardiac death (SCD) (RR, 0.47, 95% CI, 0.30‐0.73, P < .001, I2 = 0). There were no statistical differences between two groups with regard to risk of noncardiac mortality, non‐SCD, cardiac arrest, cardiac transplant, sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), and VT requiring medical treatment. Our results support efficacy of ICDs at reducing all‐cause mortality due to a reduction in SCD.

NOACs, either interrupted or un-interrupted, are safer and equally effective drugs compared to U-VKA in AF patients requiring CA.