Is residual cardiovascular risk one problem or many? An endpoint-harmonized look across five drug classes

Our meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials (157,278 participants) in Scientific Reports finds SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, PCSK9i, omega-3 and anti-inflammatory therapies linked to 16% lower MACE risk, robust to strict 3-point MACE, but the classes are not interchangeable.

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the URL to share elsewhere

This is a representation of how your post may appear on social media. The actual post will vary between social networks

Why we did this study

Even with intensive LDL-cholesterol lowering, blood pressure control and antithrombotic therapy, many patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease or obesity continue to experience myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death. Over the past decade, several drug classes – SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, PCSK9 inhibitors, omega-3 fatty acid–based therapies and anti-inflammatory agents – have each demonstrated cardiovascular benefit in large outcomes trials. However, trials define “MACE” differently, which makes it difficult to judge whether these mechanistically distinct strategies converge on a reproducible reduction in cardiovascular events.

What we did

We conducted a PROSPERO-registered (CRD420261279972) systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials across these five therapeutic classes, reported according to PRISMA 2020. The central design feature was a prespecified endpoint-harmonization framework: a hierarchical set of rules for selecting, in each trial, the cardiovascular composite most comparable to MACE. Robustness was then tested in a sensitivity analysis restricted to strict 3-point MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke). Hazard ratios were pooled using random-effects models (REML with Hartung–Knapp adjustment) in R with the metafor package. Seventeen trials met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1; Table 1).

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram showing 125 records identified, 99 screened, 25 full-text reports assessed and 17 trials included
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of study selection. Source: Bin Bashir M, et al. Scientific Reports (2026). doi:10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

What we found

  • Primary analysis: 17 trials, 157,278 participants and 15,815 events. Active therapy was associated with a 16% lower risk of MACE (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79–0.88; I² = 51%) (Table 2; Figure 2).
  • Strict 3-point MACE: 10 trials and 98,973 participants gave a near-identical estimate (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80–0.86), with no observed heterogeneity (I² = 0%) (Figure 4).
  • By drug class: benefit was most consistent for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Anti-inflammatory therapies also favoured treatment, with greater variation across agents and settings (Figure 3).
  • Limited evidence: PCSK9 inhibitor and omega-3 estimates rested on two trials each; the omega-3 result reflects the well-recognized divergence between REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH.
  • Effect modification: no statistically significant effect modification by drug class was detected, although the analysis was not designed to establish equivalence between classes.

Table 2. Key outcomes: primary endpoint-harmonized MACE and strict 3-point MACE sensitivity analysis.

Analysis set Trials (k) Participants (N) Events (n) Pooled HR (95% CI) I² τ² P for subgroup differences (drug class)
Endpoint-harmonized MACE (primary) 17 157,278 15,815 0.84 (0.79–0.88) 51% 0.005 0.976
Strict 3-point MACE (sensitivity) 10 98,973 9,067 0.83 (0.80–0.86) 0% 0.000 0.765

Hazard ratios were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung–Knapp adjustment. I² and τ² quantify between-study heterogeneity. Events represent total endpoint events across intervention and control groups within each analysis set. No omega-3 fatty acid trial was eligible for the strict 3-point MACE analysis. Source: Bin Bashir M, et al. Scientific Reports (2026). doi:10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Forest plot of trial-level and pooled hazard ratios for endpoint-harmonized MACE across 17 trials grouped by drug class; overall HR 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88)
Figure 2. Primary analysis: endpoint-harmonized MACE. Trial-level random-effects meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials, grouped by drug class. Squares represent individual trial hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals; diamonds indicate pooled estimates. Overall pooled HR 0.84 (0.79–0.88); I² = 51%; τ² = 0.005. Source: Bin Bashir M, et al. Scientific Reports (2026). doi:10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Class-level pooled hazard ratios comparing endpoint-harmonized MACE (Panel A) with strict 3-point MACE (Panel B)
Figure 3. Endpoint sensitivity: pooled MACE effects by drug class. Panel A shows class-level pooled hazard ratios for the primary endpoint-harmonized analysis; Panel B shows the sensitivity analysis restricted to strict 3-point MACE. For classes represented by a single trial, the trial-specific estimate is shown without heterogeneity statistics. Source: Bin Bashir M, et al. Scientific Reports (2026). doi:10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Forest plot of the 10 trials eligible for strict 3-point MACE by therapeutic class; overall HR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.86)
Figure 4. Strict 3-point MACE analysis by therapeutic class (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke). Square size is proportional to inverse-variance weight. Overall pooled HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80–0.86); I² = 0%. No omega-3 fatty acid–based trial met the strict 3-point endpoint definition. Source: Bin Bashir M, et al. Scientific Reports (2026). doi:10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

What we found most instructive

Much of the between-trial heterogeneity disappeared once the endpoint definition was held constant. This suggests that a meaningful part of the apparent inconsistency across cardiovascular outcomes trials reflects how composite endpoints are constructed, rather than differences in biology alone.

Why it matters

Residual cardiovascular risk appears multidimensional and modifiable through several partly independent pathways – lipid, metabolic, cardiorenal and inflammatory. However, overall benefit should not be equated with therapeutic interchangeability. These therapies are best viewed as complementary options, layered according to each patient’s clinical phenotype, with pathway-specific evidence continuing to guide the choice of agent.

Included trials

Table 1. Trial and population characteristics of the included randomized trials (primary endpoint-harmonized MACE pool; k = 17).

Trial (Year) Drug class Intervention Comparator N Age, mean (SD) Women, % Diabetes, % ASCVD, % Follow-up, months
Zinman et al. (2015) SGLT2 inhibitor Empagliflozin (10 mg or 25 mg once daily; pooled) Placebo 7,020 63.1 (8.6) 28.5 100.0 100.0 37
Neal et al. (2017) SGLT2 inhibitor Canagliflozin (100 mg or 300 mg once daily; pooled) Placebo 10,142 63.3 (8.3) 35.8 100.0 65.6 NR
Perkovic et al. (2019) SGLT2 inhibitor Canagliflozin Placebo 4,401 63.0 (9.2) 33.9 100.0 50.4 31
Marso et al. (2016) GLP-1 receptor agonist Liraglutide Placebo (on background standard care) 9,340 64.3 (7.2) 35.7 100.0 81.3 46
Marso et al. (2016) GLP-1 receptor agonist Semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg once weekly, pooled) Placebo (volume-matched) 3,297 64.6 (7.4) 39.3 100.0 83.0 25
Gerstein et al. (2019) GLP-1 receptor agonist Dulaglutide Placebo 9,901 66.2 (6.5) 46.3 100.0 31.5 65
Gerstein et al. (2021) GLP-1 receptor agonist Efpeglenatide Placebo 4,076 64.5 (8.2) 33.0 100.0 89.6 22
Lincoff et al. (2023) GLP-1 receptor agonist Semaglutide (2.4 mg once weekly, SC) Placebo 17,604 61.6 (8.9) 27.7 0.0 100.0 40
Sabatine et al. (2017) PCSK9 inhibitor Evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) Placebo 27,564 62.5 (9.0) 24.6 37.0 100.0 26
Schwartz et al. (2018) PCSK9 inhibitor Alirocumab Matching placebo 18,924 58.6 (9.4) 25.2 28.8 100.0 34
Bhatt et al. (2019) Omega-3 fatty acids Icosapent ethyl Placebo (mineral oil) 8,179 64.0 28.8 58.6 70.7 59
Nicholls et al. (2020) Omega-3 fatty acids Omega-3 carboxylic acids (EPA+DHA, 4 g/day) Corn oil 13,078 62.5 (9.0) 35.0 70.0 NR 42
Tardif et al. (2019) Anti-inflammatory Colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) Placebo 4,745 60.6 (10.6) 19.0 19.6 100.0 23
Nidorf et al. (2020) Anti-inflammatory Colchicine 0.5 mg once daily Placebo 5,522 66.0 (8.6) 15.0 19.0 100.0 29
Ridker et al. (2017) Anti-inflammatory Canakinumab Placebo 5,628 61.2 (10.0) 25.6 40.6 100.0 44
Tong et al. (2020) Anti-inflammatory Colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily for 1 month, then once daily) Placebo 795 61.0 (11.0) 19.0 NR 100.0 NR
Jolly et al. (2025) Anti-inflammatory Colchicine Placebo 7,062 60.6 (10.3) 20.5 18.7 NR 36

Follow-up is reported as median duration in months where available. ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; NR = not reported in the primary trial publication. Source: Bin Bashir M, et al. Scientific Reports (2026). doi:10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Read the paper

Bin Bashir M, Chen C, Mohammad A, Ahmed RM, Wang ZQ. Contemporary cardiometabolic and inflammation targeting therapies reduce residual cardiovascular risk in an endpoint harmonized meta analysis. Scientific Reports. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-73850-8

We welcome comments and discussion from clinicians and researchers working on residual cardiovascular risk.

Follow the Topic

Cardiovascular Diseases
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Clinical Medicine > Diseases > Cardiovascular Diseases
Cardiology
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Clinical Medicine > Cardiology
Pharmacology
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Biomedical Research > Pharmacology
Atherosclerosis
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Clinical Medicine > Diseases > Cardiovascular Diseases > Vascular Diseases > Atherosclerosis

Related Collections

With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.

Cancer Prevention and Control

This cross-journal collection will consider submissions of research Articles and Registered Reports that advance the science and practice of cancer prevention, including strategies to reduce cancer risk and improve early detection.

Publishing Model: Hybrid

Deadline: Feb 19, 2027

Healthy Aging

This collection welcomes submissions based on studying preclinical models, as well as population-wide and clinical studies. Studies that advance our understanding of mechanisms behind healthy aging are also welcomed. Clinical research of interest will include epidemiological studies, observational studies, longitudinal cohort studies, systematic reviews and clinical trials.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Dec 31, 2026