Evidence Hub

Efficacy comparison of trimetazidine with therapeutic alternatives in stable angina pectoris: a network meta-analysis

N. Danchin, M. Marzilli, A. Parkhomenko, J. Ribeiro

The Cardiology, 2011

19,028 participants · 86 citations

Abstract

AIMS: To compare the antianginal efficacy of trimetazidine with that of other agents with no influence on heart rate.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline and Embase databases were searched for blinded, randomized, controlled trials assessing the effects of non-heart-rate-lowering antianginal treatments on exercise tolerance and/or clinical criteria in stable angina patients. All relevant trimetazidine trials including the VASCO trial, the results of which are published herein, were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis on the summary data was performed. Comparator antianginal agents were considered as a group and in agent/class subgroups. Trials involving β-blockers, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and ivabradine were excluded. 218 trials totaling 19,028 patients were included in at least 1 network analysis. Effects of trimetazidine were statistically significant compared with placebo for exercise tolerance and clinical criteria. Transposition of results into seconds for clinical interpretation of exercise tolerance parameters showed a mean improvement of +46 s (95% credibility interval: 28; 66) for total exercise duration, +55 s (35; 77) for 1-mm ST segment depression (T1), and +54 s (24; 84) for time to onset of angina, in favor of trimetazidine. Differences between trimetazidine and active comparators were not significant when exercise tolerance and clinical criteria were analyzed, with +7 s (-12; 28) for total exercise duration, -1 s (-23; 22) for T1, +8 s…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 19,028 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free