Objective To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months. Main outcome measures We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke. Results We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke. Conclusions Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.

Computerised clinical decision support (CDS) can potentially better inform decisions, and it can help with the management of information overload. It is perceived to be a key component of a learning health care system. Despite its increasing implementation worldwide, it remains uncertain why the effect of CDS varies and which factors make CDS more effective. To examine which factors make CDS strategies more effective on a number of outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice, patient outcome measures, economic measures, provider or patient satisfaction, and medical decision quality. We identified randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies that directly compared CDS implementation with a given factor to CDS without that factor by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL and checking reference lists of relevant studies. We considered CDS with any objective for any condition in any healthcare setting. We included CDS interventions that were either displayed on screen or provided on paper and that were directed at healthcare professionals or targeted at both professionals and patients. The reviewers screened the potentially relevant studies in duplicate. They extracted data and assessed risk of bias in independent pairs or individually followed by a double check by another reviewer. We summarised results using medians and interquartile ranges and rated our certainty in the evidence using the GRADE system. We identified 66 head-to-head trials that we synthesised across 14 comparisons of CDS intervention factors. Providing CDS automatically versus on demand led to large improvements in adherence. Displaying CDS on-screen versus on paper led to moderate improvements and making CDS more versus less patient-specific improved adherence modestly. When CDS interventions were combined with professional-oriented strategies, combined with patient-oriented strategies, or combined with staff-oriented strategies, then adherence improved slightly. Providing CDS to patients slightly increased adherence versus CDS aimed at the healthcare provider only. Making CDS advice more explicit and requiring users to respond to the advice made little or no difference. The CDS intervention factors made little or no difference to patient outcomes. The results for economic outcomes and satisfaction outcomes were sparse. Multiple factors may affect the success of CDS interventions. CDS may be more effective when the advice is provided automatically and displayed on-screen and when the suggestions are more patient-specific. CDS interventions combined with other strategies probably also improves adherence. Providing CDS directly to patients may also positively affect adherence. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all factors. PROSPERO, CRD42016033738

Clinical question In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Current practice Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients’ values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. Recommendations The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. How this guideline was created An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults’ average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation. The evidence A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/. Understanding the recommendations The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient’s risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients’ cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms. Because of the anticipated large variability of patients’ values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit. The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Introduction Although medical students are increasingly exposed to clinical experiences as part of their training, these often occur parallel with, rather than connected to, their classroom-based learning experiences. Additionally, students seem to struggle with spontaneously making the connection between these spheres of their training themselves. Therefore, this systematic review synthesized the existing evidence about educational interventions that aim to enhance the connection between learning in the classroom and its application in the workplace. Methods Electronic databases (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Medline, RDRB, PsycINFO and WoS) were screened for quantitative and qualitative studies investigating educational interventions that referenced a connection between the classroom and workplace-based experiences within undergraduate, graduate or postgraduate medical education. Results Three types of interventions were identified: classroom to workplace interventions, workplace to classroom interventions, and interventions involving multiple connections between the two settings. Most interventions involved a tool (e. g. video, flow chart) or a specific process (e. g. linking patient cases with classroom-based learning content, reflecting on differences between what was learned and how it works in practice) which aimed to enhance the connection between the two settings. Discussion Small-scale interventions can bring classroom learning and workplace practice into closer alignment. Such interventions appear to be the necessary accompaniments to curricular structures, helping bridge the gap between classroom learning and workplace experience. This paper documents examples that may serve to assist medical educators in connecting the classroom and the workplace.

Background: Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care. Methods: This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial. Setting: Two hundred eighty general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. Patients: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications: cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. Interventions: The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. Measurements: The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume, and cascade activities. Results: CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16–0.26, p < 0.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37–10.93, p = 0.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease–0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error. Conclusions: A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142, registered on October 25, 2016

Objective To determine the harms of ezetimibe in people who need lipid-lowering treatment. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies comparing ezetimibe with placebo, standard care, or other lipid-lowering agents in people who need lipid-lowering treatment with a follow-up duration of at least six months (or 24 weeks). The relative effects for potential harms of ezetimibe were pooled by use of random effect pairwise meta-analyses for randomised controlled trials and the evidence from observational studies was narratively summarised. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results 48 randomised controlled trials with 28 444 participants (median follow-up 34 weeks, range 24-312 weeks) and four observational studies with 1667 participants (median follow-up 282 weeks, range 72-400 weeks) were included. The meta-analyses of randomised trials showed moderate to high certainty that ezetimibe was not associated with cancer (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.11), fractures (0.90; 0.74 to 1.10), discontinuation due to any adverse event (0.87; 0.74 to 1.03), gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.34; 0.58 to 3.08), myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation (0.82; 0.51 to 1.33), neurocognitive events (1.48; 0.58 to 3.81), or new-onset diabetes (0.88; 0.61 to 1.28). The narrative analysis of observational studies provided consistent findings. No credible subgroup effects were identified for the harm outcomes, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials. Conclusions Ezetimibe results in little to no difference in adverse events or other undesirable effects compared with placebo, usual care or other lipid-lowering agents. Review registration PROSPERO CRD42020187437.