Abstract
Background
Elevated circulating cholesterol levels in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) increase morbidity and mortality. Recent studies reported that PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have a beneficial effect on various domains of patients’ lipid profiles and cardiovascular and mortality outcomes. Here, we aim to further investigate the efficacy and safety of PCSK9i in patients with ACS or who experienced recent episodes.
Methods
We comprehensively searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing PCSK9i versus placebo. Data were extracted and analysed using Stata/MP version 17.0.
Results
Eleven studies (n = 24,732) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy outcomes, compared with the control group, PCSK9i significantly decreased levels of LDL-C, TC, TG, Lp (a) and Apo-B, with the following values, respectively: Cohen’s d of − 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI − 1.64 to − 0.87); Cohen’s d of − 1.32, 95% CI (− 1.83 to − 0.81); Cohen’s d of − 0.26, 95% CI (− 0.37 to − 0.14); Cohen’s d of − 0.70, 95% CI (− 1.15 to − 0.26); and Cohen’s d of − 1.46, 95% CI (− 1.97 to − 0.94). The levels of HDL-C and Apo-A1 increased by: Cohen’s d 0.27, 95% CI (0.16–0.39) and Cohen’s d of 0.30, 95% CI (0.17–0.42), respectively. Regarding safety outcomes, PCSK9i was associated with lower odds of myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular events with the following values, respectively: OR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.78–0.97) and OR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.52–0.98).
Conclusions
PCSK9i was associated with better lipid profile and quality of life of patients and can be recommended as an optimal treatment strategy. Further trials should study combinations of PCSK9i with other lipid-lowering drugs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Despite of the current evidence-based treatments, patients who have had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at significant risk of having another ischemic cardiovascular event [1, 2]. High levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and other atherogenic lipoproteins are partly responsible for this risk [3]. Therefore, LDL-C reduction with cholesterol-lowering treatment has now emerged in the ACC/AHA guidelines as a critical strategy for enhancing endothelial function and lowering cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [4, 5].
Currently, statins are the primary lipid-lowering medication. Although, high-intensity statins alone can diminish LDL-C by 50%, patients with ACS frequently fail to achieve treatment goals [6]. This creates the urgency for more effective medications to deplete LDL-C levels below currently recommended targets. Introducing proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have greatly enhanced atherosclerotic disease management [7]. The PCSK9 enzyme regulates plasma LDL-C levels by stimulating LDL receptor degradation in the liver [8].
The PCSK9 inhibitor class increases LDL receptor availability on the surface of hepatic cells by binding to PCSK9, so increments of LDL-C are eliminated from circulation [9]. PCSK9i alone, or with statins/ezetimibe, in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease may lower the LDL-C level by 50–70% [10,11,12]. An increasing number of clinical trials of PCSK9i have proven that patients with high-risk atherosclerosis can obtain targets blood lipid reduction by combining PCSK9i with statin therapy, thus further reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and other cardiovascular incidents [13, 14]. However, there is no prior meta-analysis addressed PCSK9i in patients with ACS episodes or patients with a history of ACS in the last 12 months. Therefore, we aim to give a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy and safety of PCSK9i in patients with ACS with a high risk of ischemic events.
2 Methods
We report this systematic review manuscript according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [15]. The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO with the registration number: CRD42023408156.
2.1 Eligibility Criteria
We included all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of PCSK9 inhibitors in patients diagnosed with ACS or who had a history of an ACS disease over the past 12 months with no restrictions on age, ethnicity or country. Patients with acute coronary syndrome [ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI)/unstable angina] who failed to reach the target lipid levels (according to ESC/EAS 2019 guidelines) [16] despite other lipid-lowering drugs, who were randomized to PCSK9i as an intervention group and placebo and/or other lipid-lowering agents as a control group, and who reported outcomes of interest in an intention-to-treat analysis were excluded. We excluded any observational studies, non-randomized clinical trials, review articles, book chapters, press releases, non-English studies, animal studies and duplicates. Moreover, studies with only an abstract, unavailable full text or overlapped data and studies without a comparison group were also excluded.
2.2 Primary and Secondary Outcomes
The efficacy outcomes were the mean change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)], triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein A1 (Apo-A1) and apolipoprotein B (Apo-B). Moreover, the safety outcomes were the incidence of any adverse events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular specific mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events [stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)], coronary revascularization or coronary heart disease event (CHD) which is defined as death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring hospitalization.
2.3 Literature Search
We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS) and Cochrane Library to include the relevant published RCTs from inception until 2 December 2022. The search terms used were as follows: (alirocumab OR SAR236553 OR SAR-236553 OR REGN-727 OR “monoclonal antibody REGN727” OR “REGN727 monoclonal antibody” OR “Monoclonal Antibody” OR “Anti- Cholesterolemic” OR REGN727 OR praluent OR “PCSK9 Inhibitors” OR PCSK9 OR Evolocumab OR Repatha OR AMG-145 OR AMG 145 OR inclisiran OR leqvio) AND ((acute coronary syndrome) OR STEMI OR (non-STEMI) OR NSTEMI OR (unstable angina*) OR (myocardial infarction*) OR (Myocardial Infarct*) OR (Heart Attack*) OR (Unstable Angina Pectoris) OR (Pre-infarction Angina) OR (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) OR (Non ST-elevation myocardial infarction)). Furthermore, we performed manual research by backward citation analysis and checking cited articles in Google Scholar to identify all relevant articles.
2.4 Screening of the Literature
Duplicates were removed using Endnote software. Two reviewers blindly screened the retrieved references using Rayyan [17] in two phases: the first phase was the title and abstract screening of all extracted articles, and the second phase was a further full-text screening of all eligible abstracts. Any discrepancies were resolved through a third reviewer.
2.5 Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the eligible studies into a homogeneous data-extraction sheet, cross-checking was applied and all discrepancies were discussed.
The following data are extracted to a uniform data extraction sheet that includes the following three domains: study characteristics (study design, country, duration, sample size, population, study arms and follow-up period), population characteristics (age, sex, BMI, index ACS event, active smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular events, family history of CAD, peripheral arterial disease, previous myocardial infarction, previous CABG, previous PCI, statin therapy, β-blockers, ACE inhibitors, ezetimibe, LDL-C and other atherogenic markers), and the outcomes mentioned in the inclusion criteria.
2.6 Quality Assessment
The quality of the included studies was evaluated by two blinded investigators using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool (version 2, RoB2) [18]. This tool uses a composite score of five main domains: randomization process, deviation from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported result. For each of these domains, the judgments of the investigators are categorized as ‘low risk’, ‘some concerns’ or ‘high risk’ of bias. Disagreements were reanalysed and solved by a third investigator. The summary and graph of the RoB2 tool were generated on the Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4) for Windows [19].
2.7 Synthesis of Results
Efficacy outcomes were evaluated through either LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, non-HDL-C, Lp (a), TG, Apo-A1 and/or Apo-B outcomes and reported as mean [standard deviation (SD)], while safety outcomes, which were any adverse events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular specific mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (stroke/TIA), coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or coronary revascularization, were expressed as an event and total.
Dichotomous data were pooled as an odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), while continuous data were pooled as a Cohen’s d with its 95% CI. STATA software 17 for Mac (StataCorp, 2021) [20], was used for all statistical analyses and for forest plot generation. In any study that reported data in the median (range or interquartile range), the Wan et al. method [21] was applied to convert it to mean (SD).
DerSimonian Laird random effects model was adopted to calculate the pooled effect size for all outcomes, which assigns more weight to a small number of studies on the cost of larger studies, to provide pooled estimates with a larger standard error to accommodate for any inconsistent effect sizes. Therefore, possible inconsistency in our computed meta-analysis effect sizes must be taken into consideration as those estimates were conservative. We reported the outcomes of the last follow-up point, in case studies reported the outcomes in multiple timepoints.
2.8 Assessment of Heterogeneity
Statistical heterogeneity between studies was evaluated by visual inspection of the forest plots and measured by a chi-square test (Cochrane Q test) and Higgns and Thompson I2 using the following equation: I2 = ((Q − df)/Q) × 100%. Heterogeneity was considered to be significant if the p value of the chi-square test was less than 0.1 and to be low, moderate and high if I2 was < 25%, from 25–75% or > 75%, respectively [22].
2.9 Publication Bias and Funnel Plots
We used funnel plots to examine the publication bias according to Egger and colleagues [23, 24] using Egger’s test [23], while the Galbraith plot was used to visualize the heterogeneity between studies. To adjust for the potential bias and test the robustness among the included studies, we conducted a sensitivity analysis, excluding studies with a baseline LDL-C below 100 mg/dl [25].
3 Results
3.1 Literature Search
After searching through databases, we retrieved a total of 5664 records. Of which, 1596 records were identified as duplicates by Rayyan [17]. We screened records to include only RCTs that met our inclusion criteria, and finally 11 studies were included in this review as shown in Fig. 1.
3.2 Characteristics of Included Studies
We included 11 RCTs of 24,732 patients, grouped as 13,111 patients receiving PCSK9i and 11,621 patients as the control group. The included studies varied in terms of number of participants (from 20 to 18,924) sittings (most of them in European countries) and in follow-up. A summary of the included studies and baseline characteristics of the patients included are summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
3.3 Risk of Bias Assessment
We assess the risk of bias of 11 RCTs included using ROB2, of which seven studies [26,27,28,29,30,31,32] had an overall low risk of bias, while the other studies showed an overall unclear bias due to the following reasons: (1) their method of randomizing patients, nearly 20%, and (2) missing outcomes reporting data in some studies, nearly 30%, as shown in Fig. 2.
3.4 Efficacy Outcomes
3.4.1 LDL-C
The pooled analysis showed that PCSK9i significantly decreased the levels of LDL-C compared with the control group [Cohen’s d of − 1.25, 95% CI (− 1.64 to − 0.87), p < 0.001]; the pooled studies were heterogeneous (I2 of 94%, p < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 3a. We performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding Ako et al. [25], and the heterogeneity was reduced (I2 of 54%, p < 0.001), while Cohen’s d was − 1.13 [95% CI (− 1.28 to − 0.98), p < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 3b.
Forest plots of Cohen’s d with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for: a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), b low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) sensitivity analysis by excluding Ako et al. [25], c low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) leave-one-out
We further performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, and no single study had a disproportionate effect on the pooled Cohen’s d, which varied from − 1.13 [95% CI (− 1.28 to − 0.98)] by excluding Ako et al. [25], to − 1.34 [95% CI (− 1.72 to − 0.96)] by excluding Vavuranakis et al. [33], as shown in Fig. 3c.
We also tested the heterogeneity using the Galbraith plot, and, by inspection, two studies plotted out the 95% precision area, indicating their heterogeneity from other included trials as shown in Fig. 4.
We used the funnel plot to detect any possible publication bias, and, by inspection, two studies were out of the 95% CI of our precision area, as shown in Fig. 5. Our finding may be attributed to an insufficient literature search or clinical heterogeneity. We used Egger’s test, and there was no significant bias detected (p= 0.474).
3.4.2 TC
PCSK9i decreased TC levels significantly [Cohen’s d of − 1.32, 95% CI (− 1.83 to − 0.81), p < 0.001]; however, a significant heterogeneity (I2 of 93%, p < 0.001) was shown among the pooled studies, as shown in Fig. 6a. We performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding Ako et al. [25], and heterogeneity was as follows: I2 of 92% and p < 0.001, while Cohen’s d was − 1.18 [95% CI (− 1.68 to − 0.67), p < 0.001], as shown in Fig. 6b.
Forest plots of Cohen’s d with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for: a total cholesterol (TC) outcome, b total cholesterol (TC) sensitivity analysis by excluding Ako et al. [25], c total cholesterol (TC) leave-one-out
Furthermore, we performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. No single study had a disproportionate effect on the pooled Cohen’s d, which varied from − 1.18 [95% CI (− 1.68 to − 0.67)], by excluding Ako et al. [25], to − 1.48 [95% CI (− 1.95 to − 1.01)] by excluding Vavuranakis et al. [33], as shown in Fig. 6c.
3.4.3 Other Outcomes
For HDL-C, the pooled Cohen’s d favoured PCSK9i over the control group [Cohen’s d of 0.27, 95% CI (0.16–0.39), p < 0.001]. Pooled studies showed no heterogeneity (I2 of 0%, p = 0.52), as shown in Fig. 7.
Although PCSK9i reduced Lp (a) significantly when compared with the control group [Cohen’s d of − 0.70, 95% CI (− 1.15 to − 0.26), p < 0.001], a significant heterogeneity was found among the pooled studies (I2 of 92%, p < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 8a. By exclusion of Ako et al. [25] using sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was as follows: I2 of 93.26% and p < 0.001, while Cohen’s d was − 0.64 [95% CI (− 1.15 to − 0.14), p = 0.012], as shown in Fig. 8b.
Forest plots of the Cohen’s d with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for: a Lp (a) outcome. b Lp (a) sensitivity analysis by excluding Ako et al. [25]. c Lp (a) leave-one-out
We further performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, and no single study had a disproportionate effect on the pooled Cohen’s d, which varied from − 0.53 [95% CI (− 0.79 to − 0.28)], by excluding Okada [26], to − 0.78 [95% CI (− 1.26 to − 0.30)] by excluding Nakamura [27], as shown in Fig. 8c.
The pooled Cohen’s d of non-HDL-C did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups [Cohen’s d of − 5.25, 95% CI (− 13.11 to 2.61), p = 0.19]. We observed a significant heterogeneity among the pooled studies (I2 of 100%, p < 0.001), as shown in Supplementary Fig. 1a. By exclusion of Ako et al. [25] using the sensitivity analysis model, heterogeneity was reduced (I2 of 85%, p < 0.001), while Cohen’s d showed a significant difference that favoured the PCSK9i group over the control group (Cohen’s d of − 1.27 [95% CI (− 1.68 to − 0.87), p < 0.001], as shown in Supplementary Fig. 1b. The leave-one-out analysis showed that the exclusion of studies other than Ako et al. [25] had no disproportionate effect on the pooled Cohen’s d, as shown in Supplementary Fig. 1c.
The pooled Cohen’s d showed that PCSK9i reduced the levels of Apo-B compared with the control group [Cohen’s d of − 1.46, 95% CI (− 1.97 to − 0.94), p < 0.001]. We observed marked heterogeneity between pooled studies (I2 of 93%, p < 0.001), as shown in Supplementary Fig. 2. We performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding Ako et al. [25], and the heterogeneity was reduced (I2 of 86.98%, p < 0.001), while Cohen’s d was − 1.26 [95% CI (− 1.65 to − 0.87), p < 0.001], as shown in Supplementary Fig. 2b. We further performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, and no single study had a disproportionate effect on the pooled Cohen’s d, which varied from − 1.26 [95% CI (− 1.65 to − 0.87)], by excluding Ako et al. [25], to − 1.60 [95% CI (− 2.10 to − 1.10)] by excluding Vavuranakis et al. [33], as shown in Supplementary Fig. 2c.
The pooled studies were homogeneous [(I2 of 0%, p = 0.53) and (I2 of 12.98%, p = 0.39)] for changes in TG and Apo-A1, with Cohen’s d of − 0.26, 95% CI (− 0.37 to − 0.14) and p < 0.001 and Cohen’s d of 0.30, 95% CI (0.17–0.42) and p < 0.001, respectively. Notably, both analyses favoured PCSK9i over the control group, as shown in Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
3.5 Safety Outcomes
The incidence of MI and cerebrovascular events were significantly lower in the PCSK9i group compared with the placebo group; the pooled OR was 0.87 [95% CI (0.78–0.97), p = 0.01] for MI and 0.71 [95% CI (0.52–0.98), p = 0.04] for cerebrovascular events. The pooled studies were homogeneous for the two reported outcomes [(I2 of 0%, p = 0.63) and (I2 of 2%, p = 0.31), respectively], as shown in Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6. There was no significant difference between the two studied groups in terms of any adverse events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-specific mortality, CHD and coronary revascularization, respectively. The pooled studies were homogeneous [(I2 of 13%, p = 0.71), (I2 of 14%, p = 0.46), (I2 of 0%, p = 0.82), (I2 of 24%, p = 0.21) and (I2 of 18%, p = 0.20), respectively], as shown in Supplementary Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The results of safety outcomes are summarized in Fig. 9.
4 Discussion
Our meta-analysis is the first very comprehensive analytic approach to investigate the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors including evolocumab and alirocumab among patients who have ACS or who experienced ACS episodes in the last 12 months, with eleven studies of a total of 24,732 patients included in the analysis.
In terms of efficacy outcomes, our study shows that PCSK9 inhibitors were associated with a significant improvement in levels of lipid markers such as LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, Lp (a), TG, Apo-A1 and Apo-B. Only non-HDL-C showed no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding safety outcomes, PCSK9i did not significantly influence the improvement of any adverse events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-specific mortality, CHD events or coronary revascularization. However, there was a significant reduction of MI and cerebrovascular (stroke/TIA) events among the population of the PCSK9i group.
4.1 Explanation of the Finding
The results for ‘HDL-C,’ ‘triglycerides’ and ‘Apo-A1’ analyses were consistent. On the other hand, the rest of the efficacy outcomes for ‘LDL-C’, ‘total cholesterol’, ‘non-HDL-C’, ‘Lp (a)’ and ‘Apo-B’ all exhibited considerable heterogeneity, which could be attributable to the high risk of bias in some of the included trials [25, 33,34,35]. Furthermore, conducting sensitivity analysis on these outcomes by the exclusion of Ako et al. [25] illustrated a marked reduction of heterogeneity. Ako et al. [25] showed an extreme advantage of PCSK9i making the analysis appear inconsistent, which could be related to the low levels of LDL-C at baseline among its participants, with means of 97.9 mg/dl, and 95.9 mg/dl for PCSK9 inhibitors and control groups, respectively.
The mechanism by which PCSK9i obtains their action is by increasing the number of LDL receptors on the surface of the liver by inhibiting PCSK9, which stimulates LDL receptor degradation, resulting in increased LDL absorption by liver cells and reduced LDL levels in the blood [36]. The reduction in LDL-C levels is independent of statin activity, which inhibits HMG-CoA reductase, an enzyme involved in cholesterol production [37].
The total cholesterol (TC) in the blood comprises both LDL and HDL. When LDL levels are reduced, TC levels are often reduced as well. Apo-B is a protein present on LDL particles that helps in their binding to cell receptors. When LDL cholesterol levels fall, so does Apo-B [38]. Triglycerides are another type of blood lipids that can contribute to the development of heart disease. When LDL levels are reduced, triglyceride levels can also be reduced [39]. The rationale for the PCSK9i-induced drop in Lp (a) levels is unknown, as Lp (a) has never been thought to have a substantial role in the metabolization of the LDL receptor. The rise in HDL and Apo-A1 levels may be related to an increase in LDL-C absorption by the liver, which results in a decrease in very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) generation and an increase in HDL production [40, 41].
4.2 Agreement and Disagreement with Previous Studies
In our meta-analysis, the bulk of the population was evaluated in two of the included trials [32, 34]. Both studies were large multicentre trials that took place between 2011 and 2017, with a median follow-up time of 2.8 years in Schwartz et al. [32] and 11.1 months in Sabatine et al. [34]. The study by Schwartz et al. [32] used alirocumab SC (75 mg) in the experimental group and placebo in the control group in their trial which included 18,924 patients from 1315 different centres. While the study by Sabatine et al. [34] included 4465 patients from 305 centres, evolocumab was used in the experimental group and standard statin therapy was used in the control group. The findings of the two studies matched our efficacy and safety findings.
The main strength point of this review is that it is the first meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitors among patients with ACS. Multiple reviews were performed on the same topic [42, 43]. However, none of them included more than three trials or performed a meta-analysis. A large meta-analysis [44] evaluated the safety and efficacy of the same type of drugs, however, they enrolled patients with broader criteria. Their participants were adults with dyslipidaemia and/or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, in addition, they did not consider the lipid markers during their meta-analysis, unlike the current review. Furthermore, we limited the included studies whose populations are patients with ACS or who experienced recent episodes.
The previous meta-analysis [44] studied the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors in a slightly different manner, as they considered all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-specific mortality, MI, coronary revascularization and ischemic stroke as efficacy outcomes. While their safety endpoints were drug discontinuation, neurocognitive adverse events, liver enzymes elevation, allergic reactions, haemorrhagic stroke, rhabdomyolysis, new onset of diabetes mellitus and injection site reactions.
Our findings matched with those of the previous meta-analysis [44] in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-specific mortality and MI. According to the study, PCSK9 inhibitors did not improve both all-cause and cardiovascular-specific mortality while significantly reducing MI incidence. They did, however, observe a considerable improvement in coronary revascularization, which contradicts the findings of the current analysis. This could be due to the several differences between the two studies stated above.
Another study strength is the vast number of trials included (11 RCTs), with a very powerful sample size (24,732 patients), from various locations and durations. This may demonstrate the actual effect of these medications despite the different settings of included trials.
4.3 Implications of These Findings in Practice
The results of our study indicate that PCSK9 inhibitors could be prescribed for patients with ACS in addition to the standard regimen regarding their vast effect on lipid biomarkers, including, but not limited to, a reduction in LDL-C and TC levels and an increase in HDL-C levels. Moreover, PCSK9 inhibitors has a safe profile with no major cardiovascular events and a favourable effect in reducing the incidence of MI and cerebrovascular events. Together, these effects highlight the potential pharmacological benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with ACS. Regarding clinical research, we recommend further RCTs to address the current issue with longer follow-up time, since 37.6% of the control group in Koskinas et al. achieved target LDL cholesterol values. So, we need an update on how much we expect PSCK9i will benefit from additional LDL-C lowering effect. Long-term studies are lacking in current literature.
4.4 Limitations
There are several important limitations of our study that we must address. First, the current findings are constrained by the intrinsic limitations of the included RCTs in terms of study design, sample size, definitions, risk of bias and event detection. Second, the inclusion, exclusion criteria, doses of intervention and periods of follow-up were not homogeneous throughout the included RCTs. Third, although we justified them, the elevated values of heterogeneity that were detected between the included RCTs, particularly in terms of efficacy outcomes, are considered a limiting factor. Fourth, whereas the majority of patients in this meta-analysis received high-intensity statin therapy, some received other lipid-lowering medications due to statin intolerance or other factors. Fifth, we observed a scarcity of data that discusses the safety outcomes among the majority of included RCTs.
5 Conclusions
Based on the current evidence, PCSK9 inhibitors generally improve the lipid profile of individuals who have had an acute coronary syndrome episode. This may be of great benefit for patients with refractory dyslipidaemia whose lipid markers do not respond well to the other lipid-lowering medications. PCSK9i as well reduces the risk of further MI and cerebrovascular events. We recommend using PCSK9i with other lipid-lowering therapy according to the patient’s risk profile in the management of ACS.
References
Fox KA, Goodman SG, Klein W, Brieger D, Steg PG, Dabbous O, Avezum A. Management of acute coronary syndromes. Variations in practice and outcome; findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Eur Heart J. 2002;23(15):1177–89.
Jernberg T, Hasvold P, Henriksson M, Hjelm H, Thuresson M, Janzon M. Cardiovascular risk in post-myocardial infarction patients: nationwide real-world data demonstrate the importance of a long-term perspective. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(19):1163–70.
Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(25 Suppl 2):S1-45.
Jacobson TA, Ito MK, Maki KC, Orringer CE, Bays HE, Jones PH, McKenney JM, Grundy SM, Gill EA, Wild RA, Wilson DP, Brown WV. National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centred management of dyslipidemia: part 1—executive summary. J Clin Lipidol. 2014;8(5):473–88.
Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(24):3168–209.
Reiner Ž, De Backer G, Fras Z, Kotseva K, Tokgözoglu L, Wood D, De Bacquer D, EUROASPIRE Investigators. Lipid lowering drug therapy in patients with coronary heart disease from 24 European countries—findings from the EUROASPIRE IV survey. Atherosclerosis. 2016;246:243–50.
Lou B, Liu H, Luo Y, Jiang GT, Wu H, et al. In-hospital initiation of PCSK9 inhibitor and short-term lipid control in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Lipids Health Dis. 2022;21(1):105.
Lambert G, Sjouke B, Choque B, Kastelein JJ, Hovingh GK. The PCSK9 decade. J Lipid Res. 2012;53(12):2515–24.
Koren MJ, Lundqvist P, Bolognese M, Neutel JM, Monsalvo ML, Yang J, Kim JB, Scott R, Wasserman SM, Bays H, MENDEL-2 Investigators. Anti-PCSK9 monotherapy for hypercholesterolemia: the MENDEL-2 randomized, controlled phase III clinical trial of evolocumab. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(23):2531–40.
Qian LJ, Gao Y, Zhang YM, Chu M, Yao J, Xu D. Therapeutic efficacy and safety of PCSK9-monoclonal antibodies on familial hypercholesterolemia and statin-intolerant patients: a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):238.
Durairaj A, Sabates A, Nieves J, Moraes B, Baum S. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and its inhibitors: a review of physiology, biology, and clinical data. Curr Treat Opt Cardiovasc Med. 2017;19(8):58.
Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, Honarpour N, Wiviott SD, et al. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1713–22.
Santos RD, Ruzza A, Hovingh GK, Wiegman A, Mach F, et al. Evolocumab in pediatric heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(14):1317–27.
Burnett JR, Hooper AJ. PCSK9—a journey to cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(22):2161–2.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.
Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(1):111–88 (Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2020;41(44):4255).
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.4. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 17. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2021.
Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.
Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, Olkin I. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2003;22(13):2113–26.
Ako J, Hibi K, Tsujita K, Hiro T, Morino Y, et al. Effect of alirocumab on coronary atheroma volume in Japanese patients with acute coronary syndrome—the ODYSSEY J-IVUS Trial. Circ J. 2019;83(10):2025–33.
Okada T, Miyoshi T, Doi M, Nosaka K, Tsushima R, Ugawa S, et al. Effect of early initiation of evolocumab on lipoprotein(a) in patients with acute myocardial infarction: sub-analysis of a randomized controlled trial. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022;9(5):153.
Nakamura A, Kanazawa M, Kagaya Y, Kondo M, Sato K, et al. Plasma kinetics of mature PCSK9, furin-cleaved PCSK9, and Lp(a) with or without administration of PCSK9 inhibitors in acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiol. 2020;76(4):395–401.
Räber L, Ueki Y, Otsuka T, Losdat S, Häner JD, et al. PACMAN-AMI collaborators. Effect of alirocumab added to high-intensity statin therapy on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the PACMAN-AMI randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(18):1771–81.
Nicholls SJ, Kataoka Y, Nissen SE, Prati F, Windecker S, et al. Effect of evolocumab on coronary plaque phenotype and burden in statin-treated patients following myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022;15(7):1308–21.
Koskinas KC, Windecker S, Pedrazzini G, Mueller C, Cook S, et al. Evolocumab for early reduction of ldl cholesterol levels in patients with acute coronary syndromes (EVOPACS). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(20):2452–62.
Trankle CR, Wohlford G, Buckley LF, Kadariya D, Ravindra K, et al. Alirocumab in acute myocardial infarction: results from the Virginia Commonwealth University Alirocumab Response Trial (VCU-AlirocRT). J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2019;74(3):266–9.
Schwartz GG, Steg PG, Szarek M, Bhatt DL, Bittner VA, et al. Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(22):2097–107.
Vavuranakis MA, Jones SR, Ziogos E, Blaha MJ, Williams MS, et al. The trajectory of lipoprotein(a) during the peri- and early postinfarction period and the impact of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition. Am J Cardiol. 2022;171:1–6.
Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Wiviott SD, Raal FJ, Blom DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(16):1500–9.
Hao Y, Yang YL, Wang YC, Li J. Effect of the early application of evolocumab on blood lipid profile and cardiovascular prognosis in patients with extremely high-risk acute coronary syndrome. Int Heart J. 2022;63(4):669–77.
Hamamura H, Adachi H, Enomoto M, Fukami A, Nakamura, et al. Serum proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is independently associated with insulin resistance, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a) levels but not low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in a general population. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2021;28(4):329–37.
Ference BA, Robinson JG, Brook RD, Catapano AL, Chapman MJ, et al. Variation in PCSK9 and HMGCR and risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2144–53.
Jellinger PS, Handelsman Y, Rosenblit PD, Bloomgarden ZT, Fonseca VA, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(Suppl 2):1–87.
Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, et al. American Heart Association, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation. 2005;112(17):2735–52.
Nakamura T, Fujiwara N, Kawagoe Y, Sugaya T, Ueda Y, et al. Effects of telmisartan and enalapril on renoprotection in patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease. Eur J Clin Investig. 2010;40(9):790–6.
Wennberg P, Wensley F, Johansson L, Boman K, DiAngelantonio E, et al. Reduced risk of myocardial infarction related to active commuting: inflammatory and haemostatic effects are potential major mediating mechanisms. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2010;17(1):56–62.
Iannuzzo G, Gentile M, Bresciani A, Mallardo V, Di Lorenzo A, et al. Inhibitors of protein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS): the state-of-the-art. J Clin Med. 2021;10(7):1510.
Schwartz GG, Giugliano RP. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition after acute coronary syndrome or prior myocardial infarction. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2022;33(3):147–59.
Guedeney P, Giustino G, Sorrentino S, Claessen BE, Camaj A, et al. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab and evolocumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2019;43:ehz430.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Conflict of interest
Atia, A., Aboeldahab, H., Wageeh, A., Elneny, M., Elmallahy, M., Elawfi, B., Aboelkhier, M M., Elrosasy, A., Abdelwahab, M M., Sayed, S. and Abdelaziz, A. have no potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Data availability statement
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information files).
Author contributions
Ahmed Atia: conceptualization, data collection revision, statistical analysis, writing and editing. Heba Aboeldahab: screening, data collection and original draft writing. Ahmed Wageeh: data collection, data validation and data analysis. Mohamed Elneny: full-text screening, data collection and data validation. Mohamed Elmallahy: screening, data collection, revision of data collection and quality assessment. Bashaer Elawfi: data collection, quality assessment and data analysis. Menna M Aboelkhier: data collection, data validation and the final version. Amr Elrosasy: quality assessment, full-text screening, data collection and writing—revision. Maya Magdy Abdelwahab: screening, data collection and data revision for analysis. Somaya Sayed: summary and characteristics, quality assessment and writing—revision. Ahmed Abdelaziz: conceptualization, supervision, data collection revision, statistical analysis and writing—original draft and editing.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Atia, A., Aboeldahab, H., Wageeh, A. et al. Safety and Efficacy of Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin-Kexin Type 9 Inhibitors After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 24, 83–102 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-023-00621-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-023-00621-5