ASCORE: an up-to-date cardiovascular risk score for hypertensive patients reflecting contemporary clinical practice developed using the (ASCOT-BPLA) trial data.

A number of risk scores already exist to predict cardiovascular (CV) events. However, scores developed with data collected some time ago might not accurately predict the CV risk of contemporary hypertensive patients that benefit from more modern treatments and management. Using data from the randomised clinical trial Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-BPLA, with 15 955 hypertensive patients without previous CV disease receiving contemporary preventive CV management, we developed a new risk score predicting the 5-year risk of a first CV event (CV death, myocardial infarction or stroke). Cox proportional hazard models were used to develop a risk equation from baseline predictors. The final risk model (ASCORE) included age, sex, smoking, diabetes, previous blood pressure (BP) treatment, systolic BP, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, fasting glucose and creatinine baseline variables. A simplified model (ASCORE-S) excluding laboratory variables was also derived. Both models showed very good internal validity. User-friendly integer score tables are reported for both models. Applying the latest Framingham risk score to our data significantly overpredicted the observed 5-year risk of the composite CV outcome. We conclude that risk scores derived using older databases (such as Framingham) may overestimate the CV risk of patients receiving current BP treatments; therefore, 'updated' risk scores are needed for current patients

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists and their combinations in the treatment of hypertension

No abstract available.http://www.safpj.co.z

Effect of atorvastatin on C-reactive protein and benefits for cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: analyses from the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Trial

CARDS was partially funded by Diabetes UK and the National Health Service Research and Development Forum (England)

The effect of statin therapy on heart failure events: a collaborative meta-analysis of unpublished data from major randomized trials

The effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and HF death remains uncertain. We aimed to establish whether statins reduce major HF events.We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled endpoint statin trials from 1994 to 2014. Collaborating trialists provided unpublished data from adverse event reports. We included primary- and secondary-prevention statin trials with >1000 participants followed for >1 year. Outcomes consisted of first non-fatal HF hospitalization, HF death and a composite of first non-fatal HF hospitalization or HF death. HF events occurring <30 days after within-trial myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with fixed-effects meta-analyses. In up to 17 trials with 132 538 participants conducted over 4.3 [weighted standard deviation (SD) 1.4] years, statin therapy reduced LDL-cholesterol by 0.97 mmol/L (weighted SD 0.38 mmol/L). Statins reduced the numbers of patients experiencing non-fatal HF hospitalization (1344/66 238 vs. 1498/66 330; RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.97) and the composite HF outcome (1234/57 734 vs. 1344/57 836; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99) but not HF death (213/57 734 vs. 220/57 836; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17). The effect of statins on first non-fatal HF hospitalization was similar whether this was preceded by MI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68-1.11) or not (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98).In primary- and secondary-prevention trials, statins modestly reduced the risks of non-fatal HF hospitalization and a composite of non-fatal HF hospitalization and HF death with no demonstrable difference in risk reduction between those who suffered an MI or not

C-reactive protein levels in patients at cardiovascular risk: EURIKA study

Background: Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are associated with high cardiovascular risk, and might identify patients who could benefit from more carefully adapted risk factor management. We have assessed the prevalence of elevated CRP levels in patients with one or more traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: Data were analysed from the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Usual Daily Practice (EURIKA, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00882336), which included patients (aged ≥50 years) from 12 European countries with at least one traditional cardiovascular risk factor but no history of cardiovascular disease. Analysis was also carried out on the subset of patients without diabetes mellitus who were not receiving statin therapy. Results: In the overall population, CRP levels were positively correlated with body mass index and glycated haemoglobin levels, and were negatively correlated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. CRP levels were also higher in women, those at higher traditionally estimated cardiovascular risk and those with greater numbers of metabolic syndrome markers. Among patients without diabetes mellitus who were not receiving statin therapy, approximately 30% had CRP levels ≥3 mg/L, and approximately 50% had CRP levels ≥2 mg/L, including those at intermediate levels of traditionally estimated cardiovascular risk. Conclusions: CRP levels are elevated in a large proportion of patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, without diabetes mellitus who are not receiving statin therapy, suggesting a higher level of cardiovascular risk than predicted according to conventional risk estimation systems

Legacy benefits of blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular events are primarily mediated by improved blood pressure variability: the ASCOT trial

Background and AimsVisit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment.MethodsEight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using &gt;100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes.ResultsUsing BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.17], P &lt; .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18–1.26), P &lt; .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72–0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88–0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86–0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83–0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82–1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.ConclusionsSystolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period

The combination of amlodipine and angiotensin receptor blocker or diuretics in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale, design and baseline characteristics

The Chinese Hypertension Intervention Efficacy Study (CHIEF) is a multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the effects of amlodipine+angiotensin II receptor blocker and amlodipine+diuretics on the incidence of cardiovascular events, represented as a composite of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death events in high-risk Chinese hypertensive patients. The study also evaluates the long-term effects of lipid-lowering treatment and lifestyle modification. From October 2007 to October 2008, 13 542 patients were enrolled into the study in 180 centres in China. Patients will be followed up for 4 years. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the two blood pressure arms

The prevention of type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affects more than 7% of adults in the US and leads to substantial personal and economic burden. In prediabetic states insulin secretion and action—potential targets of preventive interventions—are impaired. In trials lifestyle modification (i.e. weight loss and exercise) has proven effective in preventing incident T2DM in high-risk groups, although weight loss has the greatest effect. Various medications (e.g. metformin, thiazolidinediones and acarbose) can also prevent or delay T2DM. Whether diabetes-prevention strategies also ultimately prevent the development of diabetic vascular complications is unknown, but cardiovascular risk factors are favorably affected. Preventive strategies that can be implemented in routine clinical settings have been developed and evaluated. Widespread application has, however, been limited by local financial considerations, even though cost-effectiveness might be achieved at the population level

Association between adherence to calcium-channel blocker and statin medications and likelihood of cardiovascular events among US managed care enrollees

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prior studies have found that patients taking single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) have greater likelihood of adherence at 6 months than those taking 2-pill calcium-channel blocker and statin combinations (CCB/statin). This study examines whether this adherence benefit results in fewer cardiovascular (CV) events.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from the IMS LifeLink: US Health Plan Claims database, identifying adults already taking CCB or statin (but not both) who had an index event of either initiating treatment with SPAA or adding CCB to statin (or vice versa) between April 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005. Inclusion criteria included age 18+ years, continuously enrolled for minimum of 6 months prior and 18 months following treatment initiation, >1 diagnosis of hypertension, and no prescription claims for SPAA or added CCB or statin for 6 months prior. Exclusion criteria included >1 claim with missing or invalid days supplied, age 65+ years and not enrolled in Medicare Advantage, or history of prior CV events, cancer diagnosis, or chronic renal failure. The primary outcome measure was the rate of CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, angina, other ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, or revascularization procedure) from 6 to 18 months following index date, analyzed at three levels: 1) all adherent vs. non-adherent patients, 2) SPAA vs. dual-pill patients (regardless of adherence level), and 3) adherent SPAA, adherent dual-pill, and non-adherent SPAA patients vs. non-adherent dual-pill patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1,537 SPAA patients, 56.5% were adherent at 6 months, compared with 21.4% of the 17,910 CCB/statin patients (p < 0.001). Logistic regression found SPAA patients more likely to be adherent (OR = 4.7, p < 0.001) than CCB/statin patients. In Cox proportional hazards models, being adherent to either regimen was associated with significantly lower risk of CV event (HR = 0.77, p = 0.003). A similar effect was seen for SPAA vs. CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.68, p = 0.02). In a combined model, the risk of CV events was significantly lower for adherent CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.79, p = 0.01) and adherent SPAA patients (HR = 0.61, p = 0.03) compared to non-adherent CCB/statin patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients receiving SPAA rather than a 2-pill CCB/statin regimen are more likely to be adherent. In turn, adherence to CCB and statin medications is associated with lower risk of CV events in primary prevention patients.</p

Cognitive function in a randomized trial of evolocumab

Inga Stuķēna as well as a complete list of investigators is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1701131/suppl_file/nejmoa1701131_appendix.pdf Funding Information: (Funded by Amgen; EBBINGHAUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02207634.) Supported by Amgen. We thank Sarah T. Farias, Ph.D., at UC Davis Health for providing the English-language and translated versions of the Everyday Cognition (ECog) tool. Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society.BACKGROUND: Findings from clinical trials of proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors have led to concern that these drugs or the low levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol that result from their use are associated with cognitive deficits. METHODS: In a subgroup of patients from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of evolocumab added to statin therapy, we prospectively assessed cognitive function using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. The primary end point was the score on the spatial working memory strategy index of executive function (scores range from 4 to 28, with lower scores indicating a more efficient use of strategy and planning). Secondary end points were the scores for working memory (scores range from 0 to 279, with lower scores indicating fewer errors), episodic memory (scores range from 0 to 70, with lower scores indicating fewer errors), and psychomotor speed (scores range from 100 to 5100 msec, with faster times representing better performance). Assessments of cognitive function were performed at baseline, week 24, yearly, and at the end of the trial. The primary analysis was a noninferiority comparison of the mean change from baseline in the score on the spatial working memory strategy index of executive function between the patients who received evolocumab and those who received placebo; the noninferiority margin was set at 20% of the standard deviation of the score in the placebo group. RESULTS: A total of 1204 patients were followed for a median of 19 months; the mean (±SD) change from baseline over time in the raw score for the spatial working memory strategy index of executive function (primary end point) was −0.21±2.62 in the evolocumab group and −0.29±2.81 in the placebo group (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.85 for superiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the secondary end points of scores for working memory (change in raw score, −0.52 in the evolocumab group and −0.93 in the placebo group), episodic memory (change in raw score, −1.53 and −1.53, respectively), or psychomotor speed (change in raw score, 5.2 msec and 0.9 msec, respectively). In an exploratory analysis, there were no associations between LDL cholesterol levels and cognitive changes. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients who received either evolocumab or placebo in addition to statin therapy, no significant between-group difference in cognitive function was observed over a median of 19 months.publishersversionPeer reviewe