Explore the vast range of titles available.

Whether intensive control of glucose reduces macrovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to determine whether intensive treatment is beneficial. We selected five prospective randomised controlled trials of 33 040 participants to assess the effect of an intensive glucose-lowering regimen on death and cardiovascular outcomes compared with a standard regimen. We gathered information about events of non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction), stroke, and all-cause mortality, and did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain summary effect estimates for the clinical outcomes with use of odds ratios calculated from the raw data of every trial. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was assessed with the χ 2 and I 2 statistics. The five trials provided information on 1497 events of non-fatal myocardial infarction, 2318 of coronary heart disease, 1127 of stroke, and 2892 of all-cause mortality during about 163 000 person-years of follow-up. The mean haemoglobin A 1c concentration (HbA 1c) was 0·9% lower for participants given intensive treatment than for those given standard treatment. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a 17% reduction in events of non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio 0·83, 95% CI 0·75–0·93), and a 15% reduction in events of coronary heart disease (0·85, 0·77–0·93). Intensive glycaemic control had no significant effect on events of stroke (0·93, 0·81–1·06) or all-cause mortality (1·02, 0·87–1·19). Overall, intensive compared with standard glycaemic control significantly reduces coronary events without an increased risk of death. However, the optimum mechanism, speed, and extent of HbA 1c reduction might be different in differing populations. None.

Both adherence and treatment intensity can alter the effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in routine clinical practice. To evaluate the association of adherence and treatment intensity with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with documented cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes without CVD or chronic kidney disease (CKD), and CKD without CVD. Retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from January 2010 through February 2016. United Kingdom primary care was the setting. Participants were newly treated patients who received their first statin and/or ezetimibe prescription between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, plus an additional prescription for statins and/or ezetimibe during the following year. Adherence was assessed annually using the proportion of days covered, with adherent defined as a proportion of days covered of 80% or higher. Treatment intensity was classified according to guidelines based on the expected percentage of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction as low (<30% reduction), moderate (30% to <50% reduction), or high (≥50% reduction). Adherence and treatment intensity were multiplied to create a combined measure, reflecting treatment intensity after accounting for adherence. Composite end point of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, heart failure, or revascularization. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated against patients not treated for 1 year or longer. Among a total of 29 797 newly treated patients, there were 16 701, 12 422, and 674 patients with documented CVD, type 2 diabetes without CVD or CKD, and CKD without CVD, respectively; mean (SD) ages were 68.3 (13.2), 59.3 (12.4), and 67.3 (15.1) years, and male proportions were 60.6%, 55.0%, and 47.0%. In the documented CVD cohort, patients receiving high-intensity therapy were more likely to be adherent over time (84.1% in year 1 and 72.3% in year 6) than patients receiving low-intensity therapy (57.4% in year 1 and 48.4% in year 6). Using a combined measure of adherence and treatment intensity, a graded association was observed with both LDL-C reduction and CVD outcomes: each 10% increase in the combined measure was associated with a 10% lower risk (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94). Adherent patients receiving a high-intensity regimen had the lowest risk (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.54-0.68) vs patients untreated for 1 year or longer. Findings in the other 2 cohorts were similar. Results of this study demonstrate that the lowest cardiovascular risk was observed among adherent patients receiving high-intensity therapy, and the highest cardiovascular risk was observed among nonadherent patients receiving low-intensity therapy. Strategies that improve adherence and greater use of intensive therapies could substantially improve cardiovascular risk.

Hazard ratios for cause-specific death were calculated according to baseline diabetes status or fasting glucose level. In addition to its association with vascular disease, diabetes was associated with premature deaths from a number of diseases and disorders, independent of several major risk factors. The presence of diabetes mellitus approximately doubles the risk of a wide range of vascular diseases. 1 Evidence is also emerging that diabetes is associated with nonvascular conditions, including positive associations with certain cancers (e.g., liver cancer) and negative associations with other cancers (e.g., prostate cancer). 2 – 4 However, a joint consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society indicated that it is unclear whether such associations are direct (e.g., due to hyperglycemia) or indirect (e.g., due to diabetes as a marker of underlying biologic factors such as insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia that alter the risk of cancer) . . .

Trials of statin therapy have had conflicting findings on the risk of development of diabetes mellitus in patients given statins. We aimed to establish by a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data whether any relation exists between statin use and development of diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1994 to 2009, for randomised controlled endpoint trials of statins. We included only trials with more than 1000 patients, with identical follow-up in both groups and duration of more than 1 year. We excluded trials of patients with organ transplants or who needed haemodialysis. We used the I 2 statistic to measure heterogeneity between trials and calculated risk estimates for incident diabetes with random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 statin trials with 91 140 participants, of whom 4278 (2226 assigned statins and 2052 assigned control treatment) developed diabetes during a mean of 4 years. Statin therapy was associated with a 9% increased risk for incident diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1·09; 95% CI 1·02–1·17), with little heterogeneity ( I 2=11%) between trials. Meta-regression showed that risk of development of diabetes with statins was highest in trials with older participants, but neither baseline body-mass index nor change in LDL-cholesterol concentrations accounted for residual variation in risk. Treatment of 255 (95% CI 150–852) patients with statins for 4 years resulted in one extra case of diabetes. Statin therapy is associated with a slightly increased risk of development of diabetes, but the risk is low both in absolute terms and when compared with the reduction in coronary events. Clinical practice in patients with moderate or high cardiovascular risk or existing cardiovascular disease should not change. None.

Associations between circulating markers of dysglycaemia and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in people without diabetes have not been reliably characterised. We report new data from a prospective study and a systematic review to help quantify these associations. Fasting and post-load glucose levels were measured in 18,569 participants in the population-based Reykjavik study, yielding 4,664 incident CHD outcomes during 23.5 y of mean follow-up. In people with no known history of diabetes at the baseline survey, the hazard ratio (HR) for CHD, adjusted for several conventional risk factors, was 2.37 (95% CI 1.79-3.14) in individuals with fasting glucose > or = 7.0 mmol/l compared to those < 7 mmol/l. At fasting glucose values below 7 mmol/l, adjusted HRs were 0.95 (0.89-1.01) per 1 mmol/l higher fasting glucose and 1.03 (1.01-1.05) per 1 mmol/l higher post-load glucose. HRs for CHD risk were generally modest and nonsignificant across tenths of glucose values below 7 mmol/l. We did a meta-analysis of 26 additional relevant prospective studies identified in a systematic review of Western cohort studies that recorded fasting glucose, post-load glucose, or glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels. In this combined analysis, in which participants with a self-reported history of diabetes and/or fasting blood glucose > or = 7 mmol/l at baseline were excluded, relative risks for CHD, adjusted for several conventional risk factors, were: 1.06 (1.00-1.12) per 1 mmol/l higher fasting glucose (23 cohorts, 10,808 cases, 255,171 participants); 1.05 (1.03-1.07) per 1 mmol/l higher post-load glucose (15 cohorts, 12,652 cases, 102,382 participants); and 1.20 (1.10-1.31) per 1% higher HbA(1c) (9 cohorts, 1639 cases, 49,099 participants). In the Reykjavik Study and a meta-analysis of other Western prospective studies, fasting and post-load glucose levels were modestly associated with CHD risk in people without diabetes. The meta-analysis suggested a somewhat stronger association between HbA(1c) levels and CHD risk.

The extent to which diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia is related to risk of death from cancer or other nonvascular conditions is uncertain.

ObjectivesTo characterise the costs to the UK National Health Service of cardiovascular (CV) events among individuals receiving lipid-modifying therapy.DesignRetrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records from 2006 to 2012 to identify individuals with their first and second CV-related hospitalisations (first event and second event cohorts). Within-person differences were used to estimate CV-related outcomes.SettingPatients in the UK who had their first CV event between January 2006 and March 2012.ParticipantsPatients ≥18 years who had a CV event and received at least 2 lipid-modifying therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDirect medical costs (2014 £) were estimated in 3 periods: baseline (pre-event), acute (6 months afterwards) and long-term (subsequent 30 months). Primary outcomes included incremental costs, resource usage and total costs per period.ResultsThere were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. The mean incremental acute CV event costs for the first event and second event cohorts were: coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (CABG/PTCA) £5635 and £5823, myocardial infarction £4275 and £4301, ischaemic stroke £3512 and £4572, heart failure £2444 and £3461, unstable angina £2179 and £2489 and transient ischaemic attack £1537 and £1814. The mean incremental long-term costs were: heart failure £848 and £2829, myocardial infarction £922 and £1385, ischaemic stroke £973 and £682, transient ischaemic attack £705 and £1692, unstable angina £328 and £677, and CABG/PTCA £−368 and £599. Hospitalisation accounted for 95% of acute and 61% of long-term incremental costs. Higher comorbidity was associated with higher long-term costs.ConclusionsRevascularisation and myocardial infarction were associated with the highest incremental costs following a CV event. On the basis of real-world data, the economic burden of CV events in the UK is substantial, particularly among those with greater comorbidity burden.

ObjectivesTo describe low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol management and lipid-lowering treatment patterns in patients with a cardiovascular (CV) event.DesignRetrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data.SettingRoutine clinical practice in the UK from 2006 to 2012.ParticipantsIndividuals ≥18 years were selected at their first CV-related hospitalisation (first event cohort) if they had received ≥2 lipid-lowering therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand. Patients were stratified into four mutually exclusive subgroups based on the presence or absence of vascular disease and of diabetes. Those with a second CV hospitalisation within 36 months were included in a separate cohort (second event cohort).Primary and secondary outcome measuresLDL levels in the year prior to the CV event and 12 months later as well as measures of adherence to lipid-lowering therapy during the 12 months after the CV hospitalisation.ResultsThere were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort, of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. Most received moderate intensity statins at baseline and 12 months. Among the four first event cohort subgroups at baseline, the proportions with an LDL of <1.8 mmol/L was similar between the two diabetic cohorts (36% to 38%) and were higher than those in the two non-diabetic cohorts (17% to 22%) and in the second event cohort (31%). An incremental 5% to 9% had an LDL below 1.8 mmol/L at 12 months, suggesting intensification of therapy. The proportion of adherent patients (medication possession ratio of≥0.8) was highest for statins, ranging from 68% to 72%. For ezetimibe, the range was 65% to 70%, and for fibrates, it was 48% to 62%.ConclusionsDespite the existence of effective therapies for lowering cholesterol, patients do not reach achievable LDL targets.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide (L) added to the standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in COVID-19 patients hospitalised with moderate/critical clinical symptoms.DesignProspective, open-label, multicentre, stratified, randomised clinical trial.SettingFive hospitals in UK and India, from September 2020 to May 2021.ParticipantsAdults with PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection with moderate/critical symptoms within 15 days of onset.InterventionLeflunomide 100 mg/day (3 days) followed by 10–20 mg/day (7 days) added to standard care.Primary outcomesThe time to clinical improvement (TTCI) defined as two-point reduction on a clinical status scale or live discharge prior to 28 days; safety profile measured by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) within 28 days.ResultsEligible patients (n=214; age 56.3±14.9 years; 33% female) were randomised to SOC+L (n=104) and SOC group (n=110), stratified according to their clinical risk profile. TTCI was 7 vs 8 days in SOC+L vs SOC group (HR 1.317; 95% CI 0.980 to 1.768; p=0.070). Incidence of serious AEs was similar between the groups and none was attributed to leflunomide. In sensitivity analyses, excluding 10 patients not fulfilling the inclusion criteria and 3 who withdrew consent before leflunomide treatment, TTCI was 7 vs 8 days (HR 1.416, 95% CI 1.041 to 1.935; p=0.028), indicating a trend in favour of the intervention group. All-cause mortality rate was similar between groups, 9/104 vs 10/110. Duration of oxygen dependence was shorter in the SOC+L group being a median 6 days (IQR 4–8) compared with 7 days (IQR 5–10) in SOC group (p=0.047).ConclusionLeflunomide, added to the SOC treatment for COVID-19, was safe and well tolerated but had no major impact on clinical outcomes. It may shorten the time of oxygen dependence by 1 day and thereby improve TTCI/hospital discharge in moderately affected COVID-19 patients.Trial registration numbersEudraCT Number: 2020-002952-18, NCT05007678.

Background: Global trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD) exhibit considerable interregional and interethnic differences, which in turn affect long-term CVD risk across diverse populations. An in-depth understanding of the interplay between ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and CVD risk factors and mortality in a contemporaneous population is crucial to informing health policy and resource allocation aimed at mitigating long-term CVD risk. Generating bespoke large-scale and reliable data with sufficient numbers of events is expensive and time-consuming but can be circumvented through utilization and linkage of data routinely collected in electronic health records (EHR). Objective: We aimed to characterize the burden of CVD risk factors across different ethnicities, age groups, and socioeconomic groups, and study CVD incidence and mortality by EHR linkage in London. Methods: The proposed study will initially be a cross-sectional observational study unfolding into prospective CVD ascertainment through longitudinal follow-up involving linked data. The government-funded National Health System (NHS) Health Check program provides an opportunity for the systematic collation of CVD risk factors on a large scale. NHS Health Check data on approximately 200,000 individuals will be extracted from consenting general practices across London that use the Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) EHR software. Data will be analyzed using appropriate statistical techniques to (1) determine the cross-sectional burden of CVD risk factors and their prospective association with CVD outcomes, (2) validate existing prediction tools in diverse populations, and (3) develop bespoke risk prediction tools across diverse ethnic groups. Results: Enrollment began in January 2019 and is ongoing with initial results to be published mid-2021. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for more real-life population health studies based on analyses of routine health data available in EHRs. Findings from our study will help quantify, on a large scale, the contemporaneous burden of CVD risk factors by geography and ethnicity in a large multiethnic urban population. Such detailed understanding (especially interethnic and sociodemographic variations) of the burden of CVD risk and its determinants, including heredity, environment, diet, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors, in a large population sample, will enable the development of tailored and dynamic (continuously learning from new data) risk prediction tools for diverse ethnic groups, and thereby enable the personalized provision of prevention strategies and care. We anticipate that this systematic approach of linking routinely collected data from EHRs to study CVD can be conducted in other settings as EHRs are being implemented worldwide. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/17548