Abstract
Aims: As the impact of inclisiran in stroke prevention in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) patients or those at high risk of ASCVD is still unclear, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to quantify the effectiveness of inclisiran in stroke prevention in these patients. Methods: Literature research was conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP) from the inception of the study to 17 October 2022, and was updated by the end of the study on 5 January 2023. Two authors independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the bias. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The intervention effect was estimated by calculating risk ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) with R 4.0.5. Sensitivity analysis by changing meta-analysis model was also performed to test the robustness of the pooled results. If this was not possible, a descriptive analysis was conducted. Results: Four RCTs (n = 3,713 patients) were rated as high-risk bias. Meta-analysis of three RCTs (ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11) showed that inclisiran reduced myocardial infarction (MI) risk by 32% (RR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.48-0.96) but did not reduce stroke (RR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.54-1.58) and major cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.65-1.02) risk. Sensitivity analysis results were stable. Safety was similar to the placebo group but had frequent injection-site reactions (RR = 6.56, 95%CI = 3.83-11.25), which were predominantly mild or moderate. A descriptive analysis of one RCT (ORION-5) was conducted due to different study designs, and suggested that inclisiran might be given semiannually from the beginning. Conclusion: Inclisiran is not beneficial for stroke or MACE prevention in ASCVD or patients at high risk of ASCVD but is associated with the reduction of MI. Given the limited number and quality of the available studies and the lack of a standardized definition for cardiovascular events, further studies are essential for confirming the results.