Statins in patients with peripheral artery disease: A protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) have been found to suffer from diabetes, obesity, lipid abnormalities, including elevated levels of total and LDL-cholesterol as well as triglyceride levels. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to conduct a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the effects of statins classes on PAD patients for future major adverse cardiovascular events. Methods and analysis: We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, google scholar, clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials. gov) for unpublished or undergoing research listed in registry platforms. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) studies published in English up to 31 January 2018, and which include direct and/or indirect evidence, will be included. Studies will be retrieved by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual selection and abstraction of data will occur. The primary outcome will all-cause mortality, new event of acute myocardial infarction, stroke (hemorrhagic and ischemic), hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome and urgent revascularization procedures and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will be assessment of the differences in change of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), apolipoprotein B (ApoB), high density lipoprotein (HDL-C), changes in pain free walking distance (PFWD) and quality of life (QOL). Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment instrument for RCTs. Network meta-analysis will be performed using multivariate random-effects meta-regression models. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to provide a hierarchy of statins that reduce cardiovascular mortality in PAD patients. A revised version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) will be used to assess the risk of bias in eligible RCTs. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will also be performed. Ethics and dissemination: The results and findings of this study will be submitted and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018082024 *Correspondence to: Leonardo Roever, Department of Clinical Research, Federal University of Uberlândia, Brazil, E-mail: leonardoroever@hotmail.com

[1]  J. Beckman,et al.  Trends in cardiovascular risk factor and disease prevalence in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery , 2018, Heart.

[2]  A. de Laat,et al.  Network meta-analysis. , 2017, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[3]  Tianjing Li,et al.  Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians , 2017, Internal and Emergency Medicine.

[4]  Anna Chaimani,et al.  Visualizing Assumptions and Results in Network Meta-analysis: The Network Graphs Package , 2015 .

[5]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Anna Chaimani,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis , 2014, PloS one.

[7]  Panagiota Spyridonos,et al.  Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA , 2013, PloS one.

[8]  Huseyin Naci,et al.  Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers , 2013, BMC Medicine.

[9]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. , 2013, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  AE Ades,et al.  Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies‡ , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[11]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression‡ , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[12]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[15]  S Dias,et al.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  H. Radder,et al.  This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , 2009 .

[17]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis , 2009, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[18]  G. Lu,et al.  Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons , 2006 .

[19]  S. Wannamethee,et al.  Cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality in older men with diabetes and in men with coronary heart disease , 2004, Heart.

[20]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  B. Kramer,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Open Access the Transitive Fallacy for Randomized Trials: If a Bests B and B Bests C in Separate Trials, Is a Better than C? , 2022 .