Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent hypertension guidelines have reversed previous recommendations for lower blood pressure targets in high-risk patients, such as those with cardiovascular disease, renal disease, or diabetes. This change represents uncertainty about whether more intensive blood pressure-lowering strategies are associated with greater reductions in risk of major cardiovascular and renal events. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intensive blood pressure-lowering strategies. For this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for trials published between Jan 1, 1950, and Nov 3, 2015. We included randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months' follow-up that randomly assigned participants to more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering treatment, with different blood pressure targets or different blood pressure changes from baseline. We did not use any age or language restrictions. We did a meta-analysis of blood pressure reductions on relative risk (RR) of major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death, separately and combined), and non-vascular and all-cause mortality, end-stage kidney disease, and adverse events, as well as albuminuria and progression of retinopathy in trials done in patients with diabetes. We identified 19 trials including 44 989 participants, in whom 2496 major cardiovascular events were recorded during a mean 3·8 years of follow-up (range 1·0–8·4 years). Our meta-analysis showed that after randomisation, patients in the more intensive blood pressure-lowering treatment group had mean blood pressure levels of 133/76 mm Hg, compared with 140/81 mm Hg in the less intensive treatment group. Intensive blood pressure-lowering treatment achieved RR reductions for major cardiovascular events (14% [95% CI 4–22]), myocardial infarction (13% [0–24]), stroke (22% [10–32]), albuminuria (10% [3–16]), and retinopathy progression (19% [0–34]). However, more intensive treatment had no clear effects on heart failure (15% [95% CI −11 to 34]), cardiovascular death (9% [–11 to 26]), total mortality (9% [–3 to 19]), or end-stage kidney disease (10% [–6 to 23]). The reduction in major cardiovascular events was consistent across patient groups, and additional blood pressure lowering had a clear benefit even in patients with systolic blood pressure lower than 140 mm Hg. The absolute benefits were greatest in trials in which all enrolled patients had vascular disease, renal disease, or diabetes. Serious adverse events associated with blood pressure lowering were only reported by six trials and had an event rate of 1·2% per year in intensive blood pressure-lowering group participants, compared with 0·9% in the less intensive treatment group (RR 1·35 [95% CI 0·93–1·97]). Severe hypotension was more frequent in the more intensive treatment regimen (RR 2·68 [1·21–5·89], p=0·015), but the absolute excess was small (0·3% vs 0·1% per person-year for the duration of follow-up). Intensive blood pressure lowering provided greater vascular protection than standard regimens. In high-risk patients, there are additional benefits from more intensive blood pressure lowering, including for those with systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg. The net absolute benefits of intensive blood pressure lowering in high-risk individuals are large. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Objective To evaluate the proportion of patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Australia and New Zealand who received optimal inpatient preventive care and to identify factors associated with preventive care. Methods All patients hospitalised bi-nationally with ACS were identified between 14–27 May 2012. Optimal in-hospital preventive care was defined as having received lifestyle advice, referral to rehabilitation, and prescription of secondary prevention pharmacotherapies. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with receipt of optimal preventive care. Results For the 2299 ACS survivors, mean (SD) age was 69 (13) years, 46% were referred to rehabilitation, 65% were discharged on sufficient preventive medications, and 27% received optimal preventive care. Diagnosis of ST elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 2.64 [95% CI: 1.88–3.71]; p<0.001) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 1.99 [95% CI: 1.52–2.61]; p<0.001) compared with a diagnosis of unstable angina, having a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR: 4.71 [95% CI: 3.67–6.11]; p<0.001) or coronary bypass (OR: 2.10 [95% CI: 1.21–3.60]; p=0.011) during the admission or history of hypertension (OR:1.36 [95% CI: 1.06–1.75]; p=0.017) were associated with greater exposure to preventive care. Age over 70 years (OR:0.53 [95% CI: 0.35–0.79]; p=0.002) or admission to a private hospital (OR:0.59 [95% CI: 0.42–0.84]; p=0.003) were associated with lower exposure to preventive care. Conclusions Only one-quarter of ACS patients received optimal secondary prevention in-hospital. Patients with UA, who did not have PCI, were over 70 years or were admitted to a private hospital, were less likely to receive optimal care.

Guidelines recommend intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering in patients at high risk. While placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated 22% reductions in coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke associated with a 10-mmHg difference in systolic BP, it is unclear if more intensive BP lowering strategies are associated with greater reductions in risk of CHD and stroke. We did a systematic review to assess the effects of intensive BP lowering on vascular, eye, and renal outcomes. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for trials published between 1950 and July 2011. We included trials that randomly assigned individuals to different target BP levels. We identified 15 trials including a total of 37,348 participants. On average there was a 7.5/4.5-mmHg BP difference. Intensive BP lowering achieved relative risk (RR) reductions of 11% for major cardiovascular events (95% CI 1%-21%), 13% for myocardial infarction (0%-25%), 24% for stroke (8%-37%), and 11% for end stage kidney disease (3%-18%). Intensive BP lowering regimens also produced a 10% reduction in the risk of albuminuria (4%-16%), and a trend towards benefit for retinopathy (19%, 0%-34%, p = 0.051) in patients with diabetes. There was no clear effect on cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death. Intensive BP lowering was well tolerated; with serious adverse events uncommon and not significantly increased, except for hypotension (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.25 to 7.70), which occurred infrequently (0.4% per 100 person-years). Intensive BP lowering regimens provided greater vascular protection than standard regimens that was proportional to the achieved difference in systolic BP, but did not have any clear impact on the risk of death or serious adverse events. Further trials are required to more clearly define the risks and benefits of BP targets below those currently recommended, given the benefits suggested by the currently available data.

Markers of kidney dysfunction such as proteinuria or albuminuria have been reported to be associated with coronary heart disease, but the consistency and strength of any such relationship has not been clearly defined. This lack of clarity has led to great uncertainty as to how proteinuria should be treated in the assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. We therefore undertook a systematic review of published cohort studies aiming to provide a reliable estimate of the strength of association between proteinuria and coronary heart disease. A meta-analysis of cohort studies was conducted to obtain a summary estimate of the association between measures of proteinuria and coronary risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting an age- or multivariate-adjusted estimate and standard error of the association between proteinuria and coronary heart disease. Studies were excluded if the majority of the study population had known glomerular disease or were the recipients of renal transplants. Two independent researchers extracted the estimates of association between proteinuria (total urinary protein >300 mg/d), microalbuminuria (urinary albumin 30-300 mg/d), macroalbuminuria (urinary albumin >300 mg/d), and risk of coronary disease from individual studies. These estimates were combined using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine possible sources of heterogeneity in effect size. A total of 26 cohort studies were identified involving 169,949 individuals and 7,117 coronary events (27% fatal). The presence of proteinuria was associated with an approximate 50% increase in coronary risk (risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.74) after adjustment for known risk factors. For albuminuria, there was evidence of a dose-response relationship: individuals with microalbuminuria were at 50% greater risk of coronary heart disease (risk ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66) than those without; in those with macroalbuminuria the risk was more than doubled (risk ratio 2.17, 1.87-2.52). Sensitivity analysis indicated no important differences in prespecified subgroups. These data confirm a strong and continuous association between proteinuria and subsequent risk of coronary heart disease, and suggest that proteinuria should be incorporated into the assessment of an individual's cardiovascular risk.

ABSTRACT Introduction Bipolar disorder is a recurrent mental health disorder with a prevalence rate of 1.4%. On average, there can be a delay of 9.5 years from the initial presentation of symptoms to a confirmed diagnosis. Individuals living with bipolar disorder have a reduced life expectancy. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating bipolar disorder. The ASCEnD clinical trial will test the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of the aripiprazole/sertraline combination in comparison with quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar depression (individuals who suffer from depressive episodes in bipolar disorder) and will include a nested qualitative study. Methods The qualitative study will use semi‐structured interviews to explore pilot trial participants' and clinicians' perspectives on recruitment procedures, the acceptability of the intervention, the management of bipolar disorder and attitudes to medication combinations. Conclusion Findings will inform recruitment strategies and optimise training for the participating sites in the ASCEnD full trial. They will also help to illuminate the lived experience of people with bipolar disorder and the clinicians who work with people with bipolar disorder. The discussion will explore perspectives on the delay in diagnosis, having a diagnosis, the impact of living with bipolar disorder and attitudes to treatment, including drug combinations. Patient or Public Contribution A Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) has been convened with the support of the McPin Foundation, which will contribute to the ASCEnD trial and its nested qualitative study to provide input on the design and delivery of the trial and qualitative study, analysis of qualitative data and dissemination of findings.

Challenges remain in translating the well-established evidence for management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk into clinical practice. Although electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems are known to improve practitioner performance, their development in Australian primary health care settings is limited. Study aims were to (1) develop a valid CDS tool that assists Australian general practitioners (GPs) in global CVD risk management, and (2) preliminarily evaluate its acceptability to GPs as a point-of-care resource for both general and underserved populations. CVD risk estimation (based on Framingham algorithms) and risk-based management advice (using recommendations from six Australian guidelines) were programmed into a software package. Tool validation: Data from 137 patients attending a physician's clinic were analyzed to compare the tool's risk scores with those obtained from an independently programmed algorithm in a separate statistics package. The tool's management advice was compared with a physician's recommendations based on a manual review of the guidelines. Field test: The tool was then tested with 21 GPs from eight general practices and three Aboriginal Medical Services. Customized CDS-based recommendations were generated for 200 routinely attending patients (33% Aboriginal) using information extracted from the health record by a research assistant. GPs reviewed these recommendations during each consultation. Changes in CVD risk factor measurement and management were recorded. In-depth interviews with GPs were conducted. Validation testing: the tool's risk assessment algorithm correlated very highly with the independently programmed version in the separate statistics package (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.999). For management advice, there were only two cases of disagreement between the tool and the physician. Field test: GPs found 77% (153/200) of patient outputs easy to understand and agreed with screening and prescribing recommendations in 72% and 64% of outputs, respectively; 26% of patients had their CVD risk factor history updated; 73% had at least one CVD risk factor measured or tests ordered. For people assessed at high CVD risk (n = 82), 10% and 9%, respectively, had lipid-lowering and BP-lowering medications commenced or dose adjustments made, while 7% newly commenced anti-platelet medications. Three key qualitative findings emerged: (1) GPs found the tool enabled a systematic approach to care; (2) the tool greatly influenced CVD risk communication; (3) successful implementation into routine care would require integration with practice software, minimal data entry, regular revision with updated guidelines, and a self-auditing feature. There were no substantive differences in study findings for Aboriginal Medical Services GPs, and the tool was generally considered appropriate for use with Aboriginal patients. A fully-integrated, self-populating, and potentially Internet-based CDS tool could contribute to improved global CVD risk management in Australian primary health care. The findings from this study will inform a large-scale trial intervention.

Acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet effective ACS treatments are frequently underused in clinical practice. Randomized trials including the CPACS-2 study suggest that quality improvement initiatives can increase the use of effective treatments, but whether such programs can impact hard clinical outcomes has never been demonstrated in a well-powered randomized controlled trial. The CPACS-3 study is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial conducted in 104 remote level 2 hospitals without PCI facilities in China. All hospitalized ACS patients will be recruited consecutively over a 30-month period to an anticipated total study population of more than 25,000 patients. After a 6-month baseline period, hospitals will be randomized to 1 of 4 groups, and a 6-component quality improvement intervention will be implemented sequentially in each group every 6months. These components include the following: establishment of a quality improvement team, implementation of a clinical pathway, training of physicians and nurses, hospital performance audit and feedback, online technical support, and patient education. All patients will be followed up for 6months postdischarge. The primary outcome will be the incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events comprising all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or reinfarction, and nonfatal stroke. The CPACS-3 study will be the first large randomized trial with sufficient power to assess the effects of a multifaceted quality of care improvement initiative on hard clinical outcomes, in patients with ACS.

Coronary heart disease has emerged as a leading cause of death in China. Although there is strong evidence for the use of antiplatelet, blood pressure–lowering, and lipid-lowering therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the extent to which these medications are used in China remains uncertain. We conducted a multicenter prospective study using data from consecutive patients diagnosed with suspected acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris admitted to the inpatient wards during the recruitment period. Medication adherence and reasons for nonadherence were reported using standardized questionnaires. Logistic regression was used to identify important patient and hospital characteristics associated with use of medication at 6 and 12 months after hospital discharge. The use of drug therapy was high (above 90% for aspirin, 70% for β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, 80% for statin) at the time of hospital discharge but decreased during follow-up. However, fewer than half (48%) of patients were discharged on 4-drug combination therapy (antiplatelet, β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and statin), and the proportion remaining on this treatment 1 year after discharge was even lower (41%). In adjusted logistic regression analyses, medical insurance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and administration of invasive therapy (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft) were important in determining use of treatment at discharge and during follow-up. In a substantial proportion of patients, medication was considered “not indicated” by the treating physician. The findings highlight opportunities to improve the use and maintenance of appropriate combinations of evidence-based treatment among patients with acute coronary syndromes presenting to hospitals in China.

There are clear evidence-based guidelines for managing patients at risk of cardiovascular disease, and yet many doctors don't follow these guidelines.

The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat. Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1–Q3 2·97–4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3–32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4–26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0–40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3–36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89–0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86–0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories. In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high–normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself. British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.