Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aims/hypothesisThe double-blind Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events (DEVOTE) assessed the cardiovascular safety of insulin degludec. The incidence and rates of adjudicated severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality were also determined. This paper reports a secondary analysis investigating associations of severe hypoglycaemia with cardiovascular outcomes and mortality.MethodsIn DEVOTE, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomised to receive either insulin degludec or insulin glargine U100 (100 units/ml) once daily (between dinner and bedtime) in an event-driven, double-blind, treat-to-target cardiovascular outcomes trial. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke). Adjudicated severe hypoglycaemia was the pre-specified secondary outcome. In the present analysis, the associations of severe hypoglycaemia with both MACE and all-cause mortality was evaluated in the pooled trial population using time-to-event analyses, with severe hypoglycaemia as a time-dependent variable and randomised treatment as a fixed factor. An investigation with interaction terms indicated that the effect of severe hypoglycaemia on the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality were the same for both treatment arms, and so the temporal association for severe hypoglycaemia with subsequent MACE and all-cause mortality is reported for the pooled population.ResultsThere was a non-significant difference in the risk of MACE for individuals who had vs those who had not experienced severe hypoglycaemia during the trial (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96, 1.96; p = 0.080) and therefore there was no temporal relationship between severe hypoglycaemia and MACE. There was a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality for patients who had vs those who had not experienced severe hypoglycaemia during the trial (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.79, 3.50; p < 0.001). There was a higher risk of all-cause mortality 15, 30, 60, 90, 180 and 365 days after experiencing severe hypoglycaemia compared with not experiencing severe hypoglycaemia in the same time interval. The association between severe hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality was maintained after adjustment for the following baseline characteristics: age, sex, HbA1c, BMI, diabetes duration, insulin regimen, hepatic impairment, renal status and cardiovascular risk group.Conclusions/interpretationThe results from these analyses demonstrate an association between severe hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality. Furthermore, they indicate that patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia were particularly at greater risk of death in the short term after the hypoglycaemic episode. These findings indicate that severe hypoglycaemia is associated with higher subsequent mortality; however, they cannot answer the question as to whether severe hypoglycaemia serves as a risk marker for adverse outcomes or whether there is a direct causal effect.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01959529

Analyses of some randomised trials show that calcium-channel blockers reduce the risk of stroke more than expected on the basis of mean blood pressure alone and that β blockers are less effective than expected. We aimed to investigate whether the effects of these drugs on variability in blood pressure might explain these disparities in effect on stroke risk. The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) compared amlodipine-based regimens with atenolol-based regimens in 19 257 patients with hypertension and other vascular risk factors and the Medical Research Council (MRC) trial compared atenolol-based and diuretic-based regimens versus placebo in 4396 hypertensive patients aged 65–74 years. We expressed visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure during follow-up in the two trials as standard deviation (SD) and as transformations uncorrelated with mean blood pressure. For ASCOT-BPLA, we also studied within-visit variability and variability on 24 h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM). In ASCOT-BPLA, group systolic blood pressure (SBP) SD was lower in the amlodipine group than in the atenolol group at all follow-up visits (p<0·0001), mainly because of lower within-individual visit-to-visit variability. Within-visit and ABPM variability in SBP were also lower in the amlodipine group than in the atenolol group (all p<0·0001). Analysis of changes from baseline showed that variability decreased over time in the amlodipine group and increased in the atenolol group. The lower risk of stroke in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·67–0·90) was partly attenuated by adjusting for mean SBP during follow-up (0·84, 0·72–0·98), but was abolished by also adjusting for within-individual SD of clinic SBP (0·99, 0·85–1·16). Findings were similar for coronary events. In the ABPM substudy, reduced variability in daytime SBP in the amlodipine group (p<0·0001) partly accounted for the reduced risk of vascular events, but reduced visit-to-visit variability in clinic SBP had a greater effect. In the MRC trial, group SD SBP and all measures of within-individual visit-to-visit variability in SBP were increased in the atenolol group compared with both the placebo group and the diuretic group during initial follow-up (all p<0·0001). Subsequent temporal trends in variability in blood pressure during follow-up in the atenolol group correlated with trends in stroke risk. The opposite effects of calcium-channel blockers and β blockers on variability of blood pressure account for the disparity in observed effects on risk of stroke and expected effects based on mean blood pressure. To prevent stroke most effectively, blood-pressure-lowering drugs should reduce mean blood pressure without increasing variability; ideally they should reduce both. None.

DEVOTE was designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine U100 (IGlar) in patients with T2D at high risk of cardiovascular events. DEVOTE is a phase 3b, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled trial, designed as an event-driven trial that would continue until 633 positively adjudicated primary events were accrued. The primary end point was the time from randomization to a composite outcome consisting of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Patients with T2D at high risk of cardiovascular complications were randomized 1:1 to receive either IDeg or IGlar, each added to background therapies. This trial was designed to demonstrate statistical noninferiority of IDeg vs IGlar for the primary end point. DEVOTE enrolled 7,637 patients between October 2013 and November 2014 at 436 sites in 20 countries. Of these, 6,506 patients had prior cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, and the remainder had multiple cardiovascular risk factors. DEVOTE was designed to provide conclusive evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of IDeg relative to IGlar in a high-risk population of patients with T2D.

Diabetes is a multisystem disorder associated with a nearly twofold excess risk for a broad range of adverse cardiovascular outcomes including coronary heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Liraglutide is a human glucagon-like peptide receptor analog approved for use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To formally assess the cardiovascular safety of liraglutide, the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of cardiovascular outcome Results (LEADER) trial was commenced in 2010. LEADER is a phase 3B, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with long-term follow-up. Patients with T2DM at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) who were either drug naive or treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents or selected insulin regimens (human NPH, long-acting analog, or premixed) alone or in combination with oral antihyperglycemics were eligible for inclusion. Randomized patients are being followed for up to 5 years. The primary end point is the time from randomization to a composite outcome consisting of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. LEADER commenced in September 2010, and enrollment concluded in April 2012. There were 9,340 patients enrolled at 410 sites in 32 countries. The mean age of patients was 64.3 ± 7.2 years, 64.3% were men, and mean body mass index was 32.5 ± 6.3 kg/m2. There were 7,592 (81.3%) patients with prior CVD and 1,748 (18.7%) who were high risk but without prior CVD. It is expected that LEADER will provide conclusive data regarding the cardiovascular safety of liraglutide relative to the current standard of usual care for a global population of patients with T2DM.

Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) and therapeutic inertia pose significant challenges in effectively managing hypertension. This study objective was to quantify levels of uncontrolled BP and therapeutic inertia among patients treated for hypertension in primary care. This retrospective cohort study used data recorded by general practitioners from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. Adults with primary hypertension who received a recorded prescription for any antihypertensive drug between January 2015 and June 2017 (index date) were included, with a follow‐up of 18 months. Primary outcomes included the percentage of patients with uncontrolled BP (defined as systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg) and of apparent therapeutic inertia (defined as two consecutive uncontrolled BP records without treatment change) during follow‐up. Finally, of 581 260 patients receiving antihypertensive drug(s), 37.2% ( n  = 216 014) had uncontrolled BP at the index date and 30.3% ( n  = 175 955) had no record of BP at this date. During follow‐up, 59.2% had ≥1 record of uncontrolled BP, in 22% all records showed uncontrolled BP, and 12.8% had no record of BP. Among those with uncontrolled BP at the index date, 72.9% had ≥1 record of uncontrolled BP during follow‐up, and in 28.3% all records showed uncontrolled BP. Therapeutic inertia was observed in 33.1% of patients overall, and in 55.7% of those with uncontrolled BP at the index date. In conclusion, BP recording was infrequent, possibly reflecting both a low frequency of measurement and potential under‐recording. Uncontrolled BP and therapeutic inertia appear to be widespread in UK general practice.

Background To explore whether healthy lifestyle factors (HLFs) predict a lower risk of major macrovascular and microvascular events and death in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with a high risk of vascular complications. Methods Post hoc analyses of 11,133 participants with T2D in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial who were assigned a score ranging from 0 to 4 based on the number of baseline HLFs: never smoked, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, ideal waist/hip ratio, and low-to-moderate alcohol consumption. Multivariable Cox models were used to determine associations of 0, 1, 2, and ≥ 3 HLFs with vascular events and all-cause mortality. Results Compared to participants with no HLFs, hazard ratios for participants with 3 or 4 HLFs were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.81) for the composite of major macrovascular or microvascular events, 0.58 (0.46–0.75) for major macrovascular events, 0.78 (0.61–0.99) for microvascular events, and 0.48 (0.37–0.63) for all-cause mortality during a median follow-up of 5 years. Each increment in HLF score was significantly associated with lower rates of these outcomes. There was no heterogeneity in the effect on any outcome by HLF across randomized intensive blood glucose control and blood pressure lowering treatments. Conclusions HLFs are associated with lower risks of major macrovascular and microvascular events and lower rates of death in high-risk adults with T2D.

Up to 50% of patients with acute stroke are taking antihypertensive drugs on hospital admission. However, whether such treatment should be continued during the immediate post-stroke period is unclear. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of continuing or stopping pre-existing antihypertensive drugs in patients who had recently had a stroke. The Continue Or Stop post-Stroke Antihypertensives Collaborative Study (COSSACS) was a UK multicentre, prospective, randomised, open, blinded-endpoint trial. Patients were recruited at 49 UK National Institute for Health Research Stroke Research Network centres from January 1, 2003, to March 31, 2009. Patients aged over 18 years who were taking antihypertensive drugs were enrolled within 48 h of stroke and the last dose of antihypertensive drug. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by secure internet central randomisation to either continue or stop pre-existing antihypertensive drugs for 2 weeks. Patients and clinicians who randomly assigned patients were unmasked to group allocation. Clinicians who assessed 2-week outcomes and 6-month outcomes were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was death or dependency at 2 weeks, with dependency defined as a modified Rankin scale score greater than 3 points. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, number ISRCTN89712435. 763 patients were assigned to continue (n=379) or stop (n=384) pre-existing antihypertensive drugs. 72 of 379 patients in the continue group and 82 of 384 patients in the stop group reached the primary endpoint (relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·65–1·14; p=0·3). The difference in systolic blood pressure at 2 weeks between the continue group and the stop group was 13 mm Hg (95% CI 10–17) and the difference in diastolic blood pressure was 8 mm Hg (6–10; difference between groups p<0·0001). No substantial differences were observed between groups in rates of serious adverse events, 6-month mortality, or major cardiovascular events. Continuation of antihypertensive drugs did not reduce 2-week death or dependency, cardiovascular event rate, or mortality at 6 months. Lower blood pressure levels in those who continued antihypertensive treatment after acute mild stroke were not associated with an increase in adverse events. These neutral results might be because COSSACS was underpowered owing to early termination of the trial, and support the continuation of ongoing research trials. The Health Foundation and The Stroke Association.

Background Hypertension accounts for the greatest burden of disease worldwide, yet hypertension awareness and control rates are suboptimal, especially within low- and middle-income countries. Guidelines can enable consistency of care and improve health outcomes. A small body of studies investigating clinicians’ perceptions and implementation of hypertension guidelines exists, mostly focussed on higher income settings. This study aims to explore how hypertension guidelines are used by clinicians across different resource settings, and the factors influencing their use. Methods A qualitative approach was employed using convenience sampling and in-depth semi-structured interviews. Seventeen medical doctors were interviewed over video or telephone call from March to August 2020. Two clinicians worked in low-income countries, ten in middle-income countries, and five in high-income countries. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded inductively. Reflexive thematic analysis was used. Results Themes were generated at three levels at which clinicians perceived influencing factors to be operating: healthcare worker, healthcare worker interactions with patients, and the wider health system. Within each level, influencing factors were described as barriers to and facilitators of guideline use. Variation in factors occurred across income settings. At the healthcare worker level, usability of guidelines, trust in guidelines, attitudes and views about guidelines’ purpose, and relevance to patient populations were identified as themes. Influencing factors at the health system level were accessibility of equipment and medications, workforce, and access to healthcare settings. Influences at the patient level were clinician perceived patient motivation and health literacy, and access to, and cost of treatment, although these represented doctors’ perceptions rather than patient perceived factors. Conclusions This study adds a high level global view to previous studies investigating clinician perspectives on hypertension guideline use. Guidelines should be evidence-based, regularly updated and attention should be given to increasing applicability to LMICs and a range of healthcare professionals.

Results of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) show significantly lower rates of coronary and stroke events in individuals allocated an amlodipine-based combination drug regimen than in those allocated an atenolol-based combination drug regimen (HR 0·86 and 0·77, respectively). Our aim was to assess to what extent these differences were due to significant differences in blood pressures and in other variables noted after randomisation. We used data from ASCOT-BPLA (n=19 257) and compared differences in accumulated mean blood pressure levels at sequential times in the trial with sequential differences in coronary and stroke events. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood pressure was used to adjust HRs for differences in these events. We used an updated Cox-regression model to assess the effects of differences in accumulated mean levels of various measures of blood pressure, serum HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and potassium, fasting blood glucose, heart rate, and bodyweight on differences in event rates. We noted no temporal link between size of differences in blood pressure and different event rates. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood-pressure attenuated HRs for coronary and stroke events to a similar extent as did adjustments for systolic blood-pressure differences in Cox-regression analyses. HRs for coronary events and stroke adjusted for blood pressure rose from 0·86 (0·77–0·96) to 0·88 (0·79–0·98) and from 0·77 (0·66–0·89) to 0·83 (0·72–0·96), respectively. Multivariate adjustment gave HRs of 0·94 (0·81–1·08) for coronary events (HDL cholesterol being the largest contributor) and 0·87 (0·73–1·05) for stroke events. Multivariate adjustment accounted for about half of the differences in coronary events and for about 40% of the differences in stroke events between the treatment regimens tested in ASCOT-BPLA, but residual differences were no longer significant. These residual differences could indicate inadequate statistical adjustment, but it remains possible that differential effects of the two treatment regimens on other variables also contributed to the different rates noted, particularly for stroke.