Effectiveness of combining PCSK9 inhibitors with statins on major adverse cardiovascular events and lipid levels in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Few percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets with statins alone. While proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors effectively diminish LDL-C levels, their combined use with statins for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and improving lipid profiles post-PCI requires further validation. This study seeks to appraise the therapeutic impact of PCSK9 inhibitors combined with statins on MACE and blood lipids in patients following PCI. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies as of February 2025 in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were identified. Regarding the risk of bias evaluation, Cochrane ROB 2.0 was employed for RCTs. Moreover, cohort studies were appraised by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In terms of heterogeneity, it was appraised by means of the I 2 statistics. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables, along with the weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and their respective 95% CIs for continuous variables. Results The meta-analysis included 17 studies, including 9 RCTs and 8 cohort studies, involving 5,607 subjects. The meta-analysis revealed that, against the statin group, the combination therapy group displayed a notable decline in MACE incidence (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.50–0.75; p < 0.001; I 2 = 0.0%). Meanwhile, the combination therapy group demonstrated greater LDL-C reduction vs. statin monotherapy (SMD: −1.29; 95% CI: −1.70 to −0.87). Moreover, The combination therapy group achieved significantly higher LDL-C ≤ 1.4 mmol/L attainment rates vs. statin monotherapy (RR: 5.83; 95% CI: 5.20–6.55). Conclusion PCSK9 inhibitors combined with statins significantly reduces MACE incidence, improves lipid profiles in post-PCI patients compared to statin monotherapy. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ , identifier (CRD420250650716).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".