Search

Abstract Background Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are related to the use of potentially inappropriate medicines and negative clinical outcomes including drug-related adverse events and functional declines. Home care clients are a vulnerable patient group often exposed to these risks. The aim of this study was to examine whether an interprofessional medication assessment can influence the functioning of home care patients. Methods The FIMA study was a randomised controlled intervention study comparing a general practitioner-led interprofessional medication assessment conducted at the baseline of the study with usual care with a six-month follow-up. We used linear mixed models (LMM) with a random subject effect to detect differences between the usual care and intervention groups in the following outcome measures; Katz index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Lawton and Brody scale of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Timed up and go-test (TUG), Mini-Mental State Examination, Geriatric Depression Scale and the 3-level version of EQ-5D. Results Home care patients (n = 512) had major disease burdens and functional limitations. Regarding TUG times, the LMM detected a one second improvement in the FIMA group and 2.4 s worsening in the usual care group. However, the result was not statistically significant. The ADL revealed an interaction across time, treatment and sex (p = 0.026). The ADL score decreased in both groups; the decline being the steepest among women in the intervention group. Conclusions In general, medication assessments may have limited impact on functioning of older people. Nonetheless, the FIMA intervention may prevent worsening of mobility among older home care patients. Trial registration The Interprofessional Medication Assessment for Older Patients, Clinical Trials.gov. NCT02398812 . First registration, 26 March 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Background: Central obesity, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia and chronic hypertension—features of the metabolic syndrome—have been individually associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, whether each of these factors additively increases the risk of VTE is uncertain. Aim: To determine whether features of the metabolic syndrome independently increase the risk of VTE. Design: Prospective cohort study derived from the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 2 (HOPE-2) randomized clinical trial. Setting: One hundred and forty-five clinical centres in 13 countries. Methods: We studied 5522 adults aged 55 years with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus. At enrolment, 35% had 0–1 features of the metabolic syndrome, 30% had two, 24% had three and 11% had four. We defined symptomatic VTE as an objectively confirmed new episode of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Results: VTE occurred in 88 individuals during a median 5.0 years of follow-up. The incidence rate of VTE (per 100 person-years) was 0.30 with 0–1 features, 0.36 with two features, 0.38 with three features and 0.40 with four features of the metabolic syndrome (trend p = 0.43). Relative to the presence of 0–1 features of the metabolic syndrome, the adjusted hazard ratio (95%CI) for VTE was 1.22 (0.71–2.08) with two features, 1.25 (0.70–2.24) with three features, and 1.26 (0.59–2.69) with four features. Discussion: The number of features of the metabolic syndrome present was not a clinically important risk factor for VTE in older adults with vascular arterial disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ischemic heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death worldwide. Herein we review the burden, epidemiology, and risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The focus of this review is on the current state of ASCVD in Canada, however, the findings regarding epidemiological trends are likely to be reflective of global trends, particularly in high-income countries, and the discussion regarding risk factors and lipid lowering is universally applicable. In Canada, the burden of death from ASCVD is second only to cancer deaths. There are major differences in disease burden related to sex, geography, and socioeconomic status. The major risk factors for ASCVD have been identified, although new and emerging risk factors are an active area of research. Recent developments such as polygenic risk scores provide potential to identify individuals at risk for ASCVD earlier in life and institute preventative measures. Dyslipidemia, and in particular elevated concentrations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B are a major cause of ASCVD. Therapies to lower low-density lipoprotein/apolipoprotein B levels are key components to treating and preventing ASCVD. Addressing the causal risk factors for ASCVD in a manner that comprehensively considers the clinical, social, and economic implications of prevention strategies will be essential to reduce the burden of ASCVD and improve outcomes for patients., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Canada, 2 guidelines provide guidance for the management of dyslipidemia. The Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research simplified lipid guidelines, intended for primary care practitioners, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines, intended for all practitioners, are based on differing methodologies with distinct priorities and preferences. The disparate approaches may contribute to confusion among family practitioners and their co-managed patients, with the potential for compromised care, differing standards for training in the fundamentals of lipidology, and differing criteria that might be used in practice audits to evaluate quality of care., Methods: The Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) recommendations were considered by primary authors of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline to identify areas of concordance, discordance, or agreement with qualifications., Results: Discordance between the guidelines is greatest with respect to interpretation of the cholesterol profile, the implications of elevated triglyceride, the utility of apolipoprotein B and non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol measurements, the role of nonstatin medications, and the importance of assuring adherence and avoiding undertreatment through follow-up measurement of lipid profiles. The disparate importance attached to identification of patients with enhanced risk due to an elevated lipoprotein (a) level is also apparent., Conclusions: This comparison attempts to reconcile key principles of practice, to foster both high quality of care and fully informed patient-centred decision-making., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: There is a paucity of data on the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of women compared with men with heart failure in low-income and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries. We examined sex differences in risk factors, clinical characteristics, and treatments, and prospectively assessed the risk of heart failure hospitalisation and mortality in patients with heart failure in 40 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries., Methods: Participants aged 18 years or older with heart failure were enrolled from Dec 20, 2016, to Sept 9, 2020 in the prospective Global Congestive Heart Failure (G-CHF) study from 257 centres in 40 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries. Participants were followed up until May 25, 2023. We recorded the demographic characteristics, medical history, and treatments of participants. We prospectively recorded data on heart failure hospitalisation and mortality by sex in the overall study, according to country economic status, and according to level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Findings: 23 341 participants (9119 [39·1%] women and 14 222 [60·1%] men) were recruited and followed up for a mean of 2·6 years (SD 1·4). The mean age of women in the study was 62 years (SD 17) compared with 64 years (14) in men. Fewer women than men had an LVEF of 40% or lower (51·7% women vs 66·2% men). By contrast, more women than men had an LVEF of 50% or higher (33·2% women vs 18·6% men). Hypertensive heart failure was the most common aetiology in women (25·5% women vs 16·8% men), whereas ischaemic heart failure was the most common aetiology in men (45·6% men vs 26·6% women). Signs and symptoms of congestion were more common in women than men: 42·6% of women had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV compared with 37·9% of men. The use of heart failure medications and cardiac tests did not differ systematically between the sexes, although implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation was lower among women than men (8·7% women vs 17·2% men). The adjusted risk of heart failure hospitalisation was similar in women and men (women-to-men adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·92-1·05]). This pattern was consistent within groups of countries categorised by economic status, geographical region, and by LVEF level. However, women had a lower adjusted risk of mortality (women-to-men adjusted HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·75-0·84]) despite adjustments for prognostic factors-a pattern which was consistently observed across groups of countries irrespective of economic status, geography, and LVEF levels of patients., Interpretation: The underlying cause of heart failure and ejection fraction phenotype differ between women and men, as do the severity of symptoms. Heart failure treatments (except ICD use) were not consistently in favour of one sex. Paradoxically, while the rates of hospitalisations were similar among women and men, the risk of death was lower among women. These patterns were consistent regardless of the economic status of the countries. The higher mortality among men is unexplained and warrants further study., Funding: Bayer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PJ reports grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study. IJ reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis (for participation in advisory boards); and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. EL reports grants or contracts from Amgen, HLS Therapeutics, and Novartis (payments made to institution); consulting fees from Amgen, HLS Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Servier, AstraZeneca, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, HLS Therapeutics, Servier, and Amgen; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory board for LIB Therapeutics, GSK, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. APM reports grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Bayer (outside the present work); and leadership or fiduciary roles in other boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi (outside the present work). LM reports honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Merck, and Janssen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Astra Zeneca and Merck; and leadership or fiduciary roles for the Canadian Heart Failure Society and Canadian Cardiovascular Society. AG reports grants from Bayer awarded to Hamilton Health Sciences during the conduct of the study. TM reports grants from Bayer to Hamilton Health Sciences during the conduct of the study. JM reports consulting fees from Anylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BMS, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, River 2 Renal Corp, and Global Clinical Trial Partners; payment or honoraria from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions, Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharmaceuticals, Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica Health, Intas Pharmaceuticals, J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharmaceuticals, The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for George Clinical PTY; and investigator fees, executive committee membership, and advisory board membership for various trials, with payments made to his institution, from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Glaxo Smith Kline, and KPB Biosciences. SY reports personal fees (honoraria and travel expenses) from Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF)., Methods and Results: We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002)., Conclusions: Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02661217., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E. Straburzynska-Migaj received consultancy fees and/or honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Abbott, Servier, AstraZeneca, and Bausch Health. M. Senni received consultancy fees and/or speaker's honoraria from Novartis, Bayer, Abbott, Merck, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, and Boehringer Ingelheim. R. Wachter is a member of advisory boards and/or received speaker's honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, CVRx, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier, and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, European Union, and Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. C. Fonseca received consultancy fees, grants and speaker's honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. K. K. Witte was the UK Principal Investigator on the TRANSITION study. He has received research support in the form of a PhD fellowship program to the University of Leeds from Medtronic UK, the MRC, and Heart Research UK, and holds fellowship grants from the NIHR and the British Heart Foundation. He has received consultancy and/or speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Microport, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Novartis, and Astra Zeneca. C. Mueller has received research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the KTI, the European Union, the University Basel, the University Hospital Basel, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Beckman Coulter, BRAHMS, Idorsia, Novartis, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Quidel, Roche, Siemens, Singulex, and Sphingotec, as well as speaker/consulting honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Idorsia, Osler, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Siemens, and Singulex, all outside the current work and all paid to the institution. E. Lonn received research support from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Sanofi, and Roche, and consultancy fees and/or speaker's honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi. D. Butylin, A. Noe, H. Schwende and D. Lawrence are employees of Novartis. B. Suryawanshi is an employee of IQVIA, India. D. Pascual-Figal declares research grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Pfizer; and consultancy or educational honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Pfizer, Vifor Pharma, Rovi, and Abbott., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know., Methods: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate., Results: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower., Conclusion: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, several health care services, including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), had to transition to virtual delivery, for which formal evaluations are lacking. In this pilot study, we investigated the implementation of a virtual CR program by surveying 30 patients attending virtual CR. Virtual CR was well received, although patients provided recommendations to improve delivery such as offering individual sessions and changing how education materials were delivered. Virtual delivery of CR likely has a role in health care, either independently or as part of a hybrid model; however, further evaluation is required., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Aims: Current guidelines recommend measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) at the far wall of the common carotid artery (CCA). We aimed to precisely quantify associations of near vs. far wall CCA-IMT with the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD, defined as coronary heart disease or stroke) and their added predictive values., Methods and Results: We analysed individual records of 41 941 participants from 16 prospective studies in the Proof-ATHERO consortium {mean age 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11]; 53% female; 16% prior CVD}. Mean baseline values of near and far wall CCA-IMT were 0.83 (SD = 0.28) and 0.82 (SD = 0.27) mm, differed by a mean of 0.02 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.40 to 0.43), and were moderately correlated [ r = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.49). Over a median follow-up of 9.3 years, we recorded 10 423 CVD events. We pooled study-specific hazard ratios for CVD using random-effects meta-analysis. Near and far wall CCA-IMT values were approximately linearly associated with CVD risk. The respective hazard ratios per SD higher value were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14-1.22; I ² = 30.7%) and 1.20 (1.18-1.23; I ² = 5.3%) when adjusted for age, sex, and prior CVD and 1.09 (1.07-1.12; I ² = 8.4%) and 1.14 (1.12-1.16; I ²=1.3%) upon multivariable adjustment (all P < 0.001). Assessing CCA-IMT at both walls provided a greater C-index improvement than assessing CCA-IMT at one wall only [+0.0046 vs. +0.0023 for near ( P < 0.001), +0.0037 for far wall ( P = 0.006)]., Conclusions: The associations of near and far wall CCA-IMT with incident CVD were positive, approximately linear, and similarly strong. Improvement in risk discrimination was highest when CCA-IMT was measured at both walls., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.J.S. is a full-time employee of AstraZeneca. The other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial., Methods and Results: We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs., Conclusion: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Importance: Most epidemiological studies of heart failure (HF) have been conducted in high-income countries with limited comparable data from middle- or low-income countries., Objective: To examine differences in HF etiology, treatment, and outcomes between groups of countries at different levels of economic development., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational HF registry of 23 341 participants in 40 high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries, followed up for a median period of 2.0 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: HF cause, HF medication use, hospitalization, and death., Results: Mean (SD) age of participants was 63.1 (14.9) years, and 9119 (39.1%) were female. The most common cause of HF was ischemic heart disease (38.1%) followed by hypertension (20.2%). The proportion of participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction taking the combination of a β-blocker, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was highest in upper-middle-income (61.9%) and high-income countries (51.1%), and it was lowest in low-income (45.7%) and lower-middle-income countries (39.5%) (P < .001). The age- and sex- standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years was lowest in high-income countries (7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2]), 9.3 (95% CI, 8.8-9.9) in upper-middle-income countries, 15.7 (95% CI, 15.0-16.4) in lower-middle-income countries, and it was highest in low-income countries (19.1 [95% CI, 17.6-20.7]). Hospitalization rates were more frequent than death rates in high-income countries (ratio = 3.8) and in upper-middle-income countries (ratio = 2.4), similar in lower-middle-income countries (ratio = 1.1), and less frequent in low-income countries (ratio = 0.6). The 30-day case-fatality rate after first hospital admission was lowest in high-income countries (6.7%), followed by upper-middle-income countries (9.7%), then lower-middle-income countries (21.1%), and highest in low-income countries (31.6%). The proportional risk of death within 30 days of a first hospital admission was 3- to 5-fold higher in lower-middle-income countries and low-income countries compared with high-income countries after adjusting for patient characteristics and use of long-term HF therapies., Conclusions and Relevance: This study of HF patients from 40 different countries and derived from 4 different economic levels demonstrated differences in HF etiologies, management, and outcomes. These data may be useful in planning approaches to improve HF prevention and treatment globally.

Aims: Diabetes mellitus is associated with worse outcomes and lower attainment of disease-modifying therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This post hoc analysis of TRANSITION compared the patterns of tolerability and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF stabilized after hospital admission due to acute decompensated HF depending on the presence or absence of diabetes as a co-morbidity., Methods: TRANSITION, a randomized, open-label study compared sacubitril/valsartan initiation pre-discharge vs. post-discharge (up to14 days) in 991 patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated HFrEF. The impact of diabetes status on tolerability and safety was studied at 10-week and 26-week post-randomization., Results: Among the 991 patients analysed at baseline, 460 (46.4%) had diabetes and exhibited a higher risk profile. At 10 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan target dose (97/103 mg bid) was achieved in a similar proportion of patients in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge respectively [diabetes subgroup: 47% (n = 105/226) vs. 50% (n = 115/228); relative risk ratio (RRR), 0.923; P = 0.412; non-diabetes subgroup: 45% (n = 119/267) vs. 51% (n = 133/261); RRR, 0.878; P = 0.155]. The proportions of patients achieving and maintaining either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg bid [diabetes subgroup: 61.1% (n = 138/226) vs. 67.5% (n = 154/228); RRR, 0.909; P = 0.175; non-diabetes subgroup: 62.9% [n = 168/267] vs 69.3% [n = 181/261]; RRR, 0.906; P = 0.118] or any dose for ≥2 weeks leading to Week 10 [diabetes subgroup: 85% (n = 192/226) vs. 88.2% (n = 201/228); RRR, 0.966; P = 0.356; non-diabetes subgroup: 86.9% (n = 232/267) vs. 90.8% (n = 237/261); RRR, 0.963; P = 0.215] were also similar in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge, respectively. At 10 weeks, hypotension and renal dysfunction rates were similar, although hyperkalaemia was higher among patients with diabetes (15.9% vs. 9.5%). The rate of permanent discontinuation due to adverse events was similar in the diabetes and non-diabetes subgroups at 10 weeks, respectively: pre-discharge (7.5% vs. 7.1%) or post-discharge (5.7% vs. 4.2%). Similar patterns of uptitration and tolerability were observed at 26 weeks. Cardiac biomarkers including NT-proBNP (P < 0.005) and hs-TnT (P < 0.005) reduced significantly from baseline levels in both subgroups at Weeks 4 and 10; however, the response was greater among patients without diabetes. Mortality (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 3.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.438) and HF rehospitalization (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 36.3% vs. 33.0%; P = 0.295) did not differ between the groups at 26 weeks., Conclusions: Despite a higher risk profile among patients with diabetes, sacubitril/valsartan initiation either before or shortly after discharge in hospitalized patients with HFrEF resulted in comparable rates of dose up-titration and tolerability as in those without diabetes., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To examine the association between rosuvastatin and VTE risk, and whether effects vary in different subpopulations stratified by key demographic, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, and other risk factors associated with VTE., Methods and Results: An individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted across two randomized controlled trials in 30 507 participants over a mean follow-up of 3.62 years, individuals had no prior history of vascular disease but were at intermediate CV risk. In both trials, participants were randomized to receive rosuvastatin or matching placebo. The primary outcome was VTE during follow-up, defined as either deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Associations between rosuvastatin and VTE were examined in the overall pooled cohort, and subpopulations stratified by demographic risk factors (i.e. age and sex), CVD risk factors (i.e. obesity, smoking, lipid levels, blood pressure levels, and C-reactive protein level), and a history of cancer. Mean age was 65.96 (SD 7.19) years of age, and 17 832 (58.45%) were male and 5434 (17.82%) were smokers, median BMI was 27.6 [interquartile range (IQR) 24.7-31.1] kg/m2, and median CRP level was 3.4 (IQR 2.1-6.0) mg/L. There were 139 VTE events. In the pooled cohort, rosuvastatin was associated with a large proportional reduction in the risk of VTE (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75). No significant interactions were observed between treatment with rosuvastatin and the risk of VTE across subpopulations stratified by demographic, CVD risk factors, or a history of cancer (P-values for interactions >0.05 for all subgroups)., Conclusion: Rosuvastatin is associated with a 47% proportional reduction in the risk of VTE, and its effect is consistent both in the presence or absence of VTE-related clinical risk factors., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In randomised controlled trials, fixed-dose combination treatments (or polypills) have been shown to reduce a composite of cardiovascular disease outcomes in primary prevention. However, whether or not aspirin should be included, effects on specific outcomes, and effects in key subgroups are unknown., Methods: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis of large randomised controlled trials (each with ≥1000 participants and ≥2 years of follow-up) of a fixed-dose combination treatment strategy versus control in a primary cardiovascular disease prevention population. We included trials that evaluated a fixed-dose combination strategy of at least two blood pressure lowering agents plus a statin (with or without aspirin), compared with a control strategy (either placebo or usual care). The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Additional outcomes included individual cardiovascular outcomes and death from any cause. Outcomes were also evaluated in groups stratified by the inclusion of aspirin in the fixed-dose treatment strategy, and effect sizes were estimated in prespecified subgroups based on risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare strategies., Findings: Three large randomised trials were included in the analysis (TIPS-3, HOPE-3, and PolyIran), with a total of 18 162 participants. Mean age was 63·0 years (SD 7·1), and 9038 (49·8%) participants were female. Estimated 10-year cardiovascular disease risk for the population was 17·7% (8·7). During a median follow-up of 5 years, the primary outcome occurred in 276 (3·0%) participants in the fixed-dose combination strategy group compared with 445 (4·9%) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·53-0·73, p<0·0001). Reductions were also observed for the separate components of the primary outcome: myocardial infarction (0·52, 0·38-0·70), revascularisation (0·54, 0·36-0·80), stroke (0·59, 0·45-0·78), and cardiovascular death (0·65, 0·52-0·81). Significant reductions in the primary outcome and its components were observed in the analyses of fixed-dose combination strategies with and without aspirin, with greater reductions for strategies including aspirin. Treatment effects were similar at different lipid and blood pressure levels, and in the presence or absence of diabetes, smoking, or obesity. Gastrointestinal bleeding was uncommon but slightly more frequent in the fixed-dose combination strategy with aspirin group versus control (19 [0·4%] vs 11 [0·2%], p=0·15). The frequencies of haemorrhagic stroke (10 [0·2%] vs 15 [0·3%]), fatal bleeding (two [<0·1%] vs four [0·1%]), and peptic ulcer disease (32 [0·7%] vs 34 [0·8%]) were low and did not differ significantly between groups. Dizziness was more common with fixed-dose combination treatment (1060 [11·7%] vs 834 [9·2%], p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Fixed-dose combination treatment strategies substantially reduce cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation, and cardiovascular death in primary cardiovascular disease prevention. These benefits are consistent irrespective of cardiometabolic risk factors., Funding: Population Health Research Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SY reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Wellcome Trust, AstraZeneca, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals related to conducting the HOPE-3 or TIPS-3 studies. PJ, PG, EL, SIB, KT, and JB report institutional grants from the Wellcome Trust, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, and AstraZeneca related to the TIPS-3 or HOPE-3 studies (or both). RM and GR report institutional grant funding from Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Barakat Foundation, and Alborz Darou related to the PolyIran study. SY reports receiving honoraria and reimbursement for travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Ferrer. EL reports consulting fees from Amgen Canada, consulting fees and speaker honoraria from HLS Canada, institutional research grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, and consulting fees from NovoNordisk. MDH reports grants from the World Heart Federation via unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, grants from the American Heart Association, Verily, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from the American Medical Association outside the submitted work. In addition, MDH has a patent pending for heart failure polypills. PP reports funding from St John's Research Institute, Bangalore, India, during the conduct of the study. AR reports that George Health Enterprises, the social enterprise arm of The George Institute for Global Health, has received investment to develop fixed-dose combination products containing aspirin, statin, and blood pressure lowering drugs. George Health Enterprises has submitted patents for low-dose blood pressure combinations, on which AR is listed as one of the inventors. AR is seconded part-time to George Medicines. All staff employed by The George Institute have an institutional interest to declare with respect to George Health Enterprises, although none of the staff have a direct financial interest in these investments. DX reports grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola India, Eli Lilly, the Indian Council of Medical Research, Pfizer, Sanofi, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work. JB reports personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work. RD reports grants from Amarin, DalCor, and the Population Health Research Institute, outside the submitted work. VF and JMC report grants from H2020 related to the ongoing SECURE trial. JMC reports receiving honoraria and reimbursement for travel expenses from Ferrer, Pfizer, and Bayer. AA reports grants from Bayer, EMS Pharma, and the Population Health Research Institute; and consulting fees from Bayer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, and EMS Pharma outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The 2021 guidelines primary panel selected clinically relevant questions and produced updated recommendations, on the basis of important new findings that have emerged since the 2016 guidelines. In patients with clinical atherosclerosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm, most patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, and those with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/L, statin therapy continues to be recommended. We have introduced the concept of lipid/lipoprotein treatment thresholds for intensifying lipid-lowering therapy with nonstatin agents, and have identified the secondary prevention patients who have been shown to derive the largest benefit from intensification of therapy with these agents. For all other patients, we emphasize risk assessment linked to lipid/lipoprotein evaluation to optimize clinical decision-making. Lipoprotein(a) measurement is now recommended once in a patient's lifetime, as part of initial lipid screening to assess cardiovascular risk. For any patient with triglycerides ˃ 1.5 mmol/L, either non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or apolipoprotein B are the preferred lipid parameter for screening, rather than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We provide updated recommendations regarding the role of coronary artery calcium scoring as a clinical decision tool to aid the decision to initiate statin therapy. There are new recommendations on the preventative care of women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Health behaviour modification, including regular exercise and a heart-healthy diet, remain the cornerstone of cardiovascular disease prevention. These guidelines are intended to provide a platform for meaningful conversation and shared-decision making between patient and care provider, so that individual decisions can be made for risk screening, assessment, and treatment., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Forty percent of long bone fractures involve the tibia. These fractures are associated with prolonged recovery and may adversely affect patients' long-term physical functioning; however, there is limited evidence to inform what factors influence functional recovery in this patient population., Question/purpose: In a secondary analysis of a previous randomized trial, we asked: What fracture-related, demographic, social, or rehabilitative factors were associated with physical function 1 year after reamed intramedullary nailing of open or closed tibial shaft fractures?, Methods: This is a secondary (retrospective) analysis of a prior randomized trial (Trial to Re-evaluate Ultrasound in the Treatment of Tibial Fractures; TRUST trial). In the TRUST trial, 501 patients with unilateral open or closed tibial shaft fractures were randomized to self-administer daily low-intensity pulsed ultrasound or use a sham device, of which 15% (73 of 501) were not followed for 1 year due to early study termination as a result of futility (no difference between active and sham interventions). Of the remaining patients, 70% (299 of 428) provided full data. All fractures were fixed using reamed (298 of 299) or unreamed (1 of 299) intramedullary nailing. Thus, we excluded the sole fracture fixed using unreamed intramedullary nailing. The co-primary study outcomes of the TRUST trial were time to radiographic healing and SF-36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) scores at 1-year. SF-36 PCS scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores being better, and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is 5 points. In this secondary analysis, based on clinical and biological rationale, we selected factors that may be associated with physical functioning as measured by SF-36 PCS scores. All selected factors were inserted simultaneously into a multivariate linear regression analysis., Results: After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, such as age, gender, and injury severity, we found that no factor showed an association that exceeded the MCID for physical functioning 1 year after intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. The independent variables associated with lower physical functioning were current smoking status (mean difference -3.0 [95% confidence interval -5 to -0.5]; p = 0.02), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (mean difference -3.0 [95% CI -5.0 to -0.3]; p = 0.03), and receipt of disability benefits or involvement in litigation, or plans to be (mean difference -3.0 [95% CI -5.0 to -1]; p = 0.007). Patients who were employed (mean difference 4.6 [95% CI 2.0 to 7]; p < 0.001) and those who were advised by their surgeon to partially or fully bear weight postoperatively (mean difference 2.0 [95% CI 0.1 to 4.0]; p = 0.04) were associated with higher physical functioning. Age, gender, fracture severity, and receipt of early physical therapy were not associated with physical functioning at 1-year following surgical fixation., Conclusion: Among patients with tibial fractures, none of the factors we analyzed, including smoking status, receipt of disability benefits or involvement in litigation, or BMI, showed an association with physical functioning that exceeded the MCID., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Each author certifies that neither he nor she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article., (Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation exercise reduces the risk of secondary cardiovascular disease. Interval training is a time-efficient alternative to traditional cardiac rehabilitation exercise and stair climbing is an accessible means. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a high-intensity interval stair climbing intervention on improving cardiorespiratory fitness ( V ˙ O 2 peak ) compared to standard cardiac rehabilitation care. Methods: Twenty participants with coronary artery disease (61 ± 7 years, 18 males, two females) were randomly assigned to either traditional moderate-intensity exercise (TRAD) or high-intensity interval stair climbing (STAIR). V ˙ O 2 peak was assessed at baseline, following 4 weeks of six supervised exercise sessions and after 8 weeks of ~24 unsupervised exercise sessions. TRAD involved a minimum of 30 min at 60-80%HR peak , and STAIR consisted of three bouts of six flights of 12 stairs at a self-selected vigorous intensity (~90 s/bout) separated by recovery periods of walking (~90 s). This study was registered as a clinical trial at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03235674). Results: Two participants could not complete the trial due to the time commitment of the testing visits, leaving n = 9 in each group who completed the interventions without any adverse events. V ˙ O 2 peak increased after supervised and unsupervised training in comparison to baseline for both TRAD [baseline: 22.9 ± 2.5, 4 weeks (supervised): 25.3 ± 4.4, and 12 weeks (unsupervised): 26.5 ± 4.8 mL/kg/min] and STAIR [baseline: 21.4 ± 4.5, 4 weeks (supervised): 23.4 ± 5.6, and 12 weeks (unsupervised): 25 ± 6.2 mL/kg/min; p (time) = 0.03]. During the first 4 weeks of training (supervised) the STAIR vs. TRAD group had a higher %HR peak (101 ± 1 vs. 89 ± 1%; p ≤ 0.001), across a shorter total exercise time (7.1 ± 0.1 vs. 36.7 ± 1.1 min; p = 0.009). During the subsequent 8 weeks of unsupervised training, %HR peak was not different (87 ± 8 vs. 96 ± 8%; p = 0.055, mean ± SD) between groups, however, the STAIR group continued to exercise for less time per session (10.0 ± 3.2 vs. 24.2 ± 17.0 min; p = 0.036). Conclusions: Both brief, vigorous stair climbing, and traditional moderate-intensity exercise are effective in increasing V ˙ O 2 peak , in cardiac rehabilitation exercise programmes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no professional relationships with companies or manufacturers who will benefit from the results of the present study. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by ACSM. The authors declare that the results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation., (Copyright © 2021 Dunford, Valentino, Dubberley, Oikawa, McGlory, Lonn, Jung, Gibala, Phillips and MacDonald.)

Background: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk., Methods: We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach., Results: We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients., Conclusions: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials.

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan has shown efficacy and tolerability in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the ambulatory setting (PARADIGM-HF), and following stabilisation of acutely decompensated HF (ADHF) (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION). However, data are lacking for the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in newly diagnosed (de novo) HFrEF. Here, we assess the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan following ADHF in TRANSITION subgroups of patients with a de novo vs. prior diagnosis of HFrEF., Methods and Results: TRANSITION randomised 1002 patients to pre- and post-discharge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (analysis set n = 991, following exclusions for mis-randomisation). In this post-hoc analysis, tolerability to sacubitril/valsartan [proportion of patients achieving target dose (97/103 mg b.i.d.) at 10 weeks post-randomisation], adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were compared in de novo (n = 286) and prior HFrEF (n = 705) subgroups. More de novo than prior HFrEF patients achieved target dose at Week 10 (56% vs. 45%; relative risk ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.52, P < 0.001), and fewer had SAEs and permanent treatment discontinuations. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan did not prevent the concomitant initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed HF therapies. De novo patients showed faster and greater decreases in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin-T, and lower rates of HF and all-cause rehospitalisation vs. prior HFrEF., Conclusions: After ADHF, first-line initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in de novo HFrEF, alongside the initiation of other guideline-directed therapies, is feasible and is associated with a better risk-benefit profile than in patients with prior HFrEF. Early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan may be considered to delay disease progression in patients with de novo HFrEF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02661217., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

Atherosclerosis - the pathophysiological mechanism shared by most cardiovascular diseases - can be directly or indirectly assessed by a variety of clinical tests including measurement of carotid intima-media thickness, carotid plaque, -ankle-brachial index, pulse wave velocity, and coronary -artery calcium. The Prospective Studies of Atherosclerosis -(Proof-ATHERO) consortium (https://clinicalepi.i-med.ac.at/research/proof-athero/) collates de-identified individual-participant data of studies with information on atherosclerosis measures, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and incidence of cardiovascular diseases. It currently comprises 74 studies that involve 106,846 participants from 25 countries and over 40 cities. In summary, 21 studies recruited participants from the general population (n = 67,784), 16 from high-risk populations (n = 22,677), and 37 as part of clinical trials (n = 16,385). Baseline years of contributing studies range from April 1980 to July 2014; the latest follow-up was until June 2019. Mean age at baseline was 59 years (standard deviation: 10) and 50% were female. Over a total of 830,619 person-years of follow-up, 17,270 incident cardiovascular events (including coronary heart disease and stroke) and 13,270 deaths were recorded, corresponding to cumulative incidences of 2.1% and 1.6% per annum, respectively. The consortium is coordinated by the Clinical Epidemiology Team at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria. Contributing studies undergo a detailed data cleaning and harmonisation procedure before being incorporated in the Proof-ATHERO central database. Statistical analyses are being conducted according to pre-defined analysis plans and use established methods for individual-participant data meta-analysis. Capitalising on its large sample size, the multi-institutional collaborative Proof-ATHERO consortium aims to better characterise, understand, and predict the development of atherosclerosis and its clinical consequences., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Aims: To assess tolerability and optimal time point for initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients stabilised after acute heart failure (AHF)., Methods and Results: TRANSITION was a randomised, multicentre, open-label study comparing two treatment initiation modalities of sacubitril/valsartan. Patients aged ≥ 18 years, hospitalised for AHF were stratified according to pre-admission use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and randomised (n = 1002) after stabilisation to initiate sacubitril/valsartan either ≥ 12-h pre-discharge or between Days 1-14 post-discharge. Starting dose (as per label) was 24/26 mg or 49/51 mg bid with up- or down-titration based on tolerability. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients attaining 97/103 mg bid target dose after 10 weeks. Median time of first dose of sacubitril/valsartan from the day of discharge was Day -1 and Day +1 in the pre-discharge group and the post-discharge group, respectively. Comparable proportions of patients in the pre- and post-discharge initiation groups met the primary endpoint [45.4% vs. 50.7%; risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.02]. The proportion of patients who achieved and maintained for ≥ 2 weeks leading to Week 10, either 49/51 or 97/103 mg bid was 62.1% vs. 68.5% (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-0.99); or any dose was 86.0% vs. 89.6% (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-1.01). Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 7.3% vs. 4.9% of patients (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.90-2.46)., Conclusions: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in a wide range of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients stabilised after an AHF event, either in hospital or shortly after discharge, is feasible with about half of the patients achieving target dose within 10 weeks., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02661217., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels., Methods and Results: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries., Conclusion: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use., Clinical Trial Registration: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The prevalence of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is 1 of 250 in the general population and approximately 1 of 125 in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet only a minority are diagnosed. The diagnostic criteria for FH rely on a point system using low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), family history, cutaneous manifestations, and molecular diagnosis. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of FH in the R elating E vidence to A chieve C holesterol T argets (REACT) registry., Methods: Patients were enrolled as ASCVD (n = 86) or FH (n = 109) and with an LDL-C level > 3.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. FH was diagnosed clinically using a validated clinical application integrating an imputation for baseline (untreated) LDL-C levels., Results: There were 109 men and 86 women with a mean age of 63 ± 12 years. Diabetes (29.7%), hypertension (62.1%), smoking (37.9%), and family history of premature ASCVD (59.5%) were common. On-treatment LDL-C was 4.26 ± 0.94 mmol/L. On the basis of the dose and type of statin ± ezetimibe, imputed baseline LDL-C was 7.04 ± 2.90 mmol/L. A diagnosis of probable/definite FH was found in 54.7%, 49.5%, and 61.5% of patients according to the Simon Broome, Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria, and the new Canadian FH definition, respectively. Of note, 40% of patients in the ASCVD inclusion subgroup had probable or definite FH., Conclusions: Our study reveals that a substantial proportion of patients with ASCVD whose LDL-C levels are > 3.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statins have heterozygous FH. Clinicians should consider using the recently described algorithm to assess the possibility of FH in this high-risk population., (© 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Design: There are limited data on the effects of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in Asians at intermediate risk and no cardiovascular disease. We report an analysis of the effects of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in Asians enrolled in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 3 (HOPE 3) trial., Methods: We randomly assigned 6241 Asians and 6464 non-Asians at intermediate risk without cardiovascular disease to candesartan 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or placebo and rosuvastatin 10 mg or placebo. The first co-primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease death, myocardial infarction and stroke. The second co-primary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest and revascularisation. Median follow-up was 5.6 years., Results: Reduction in systolic blood pressure was less among Asians (4.3 vs. 7.7 mmHg for non-Asians, P < 0.0001) mainly due to a lesser effect in Chinese (2.1 mmHg) than in other Asians (7.3 mmHg), reduction in the latter being similar to non-Asians. The effect on the composite outcomes was similar, with no significant benefits from blood pressure lowering for either Asians (Chinese or non-Chinese) or non-Asians. Rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a lesser degree in Asians (0.49 mmol/L (-19.1 mg/dL) compared with non-Asians 0.95 mmol/L (-36.7 mg/dL), P interaction  < 0.0004). Yet both groups had similar reductions in the two co-primary outcomes. There was no increase in permanent medication discontinuation due to muscle-related symptoms in either group. There was an excess in new diabetes in non-Asians (4.70% rosuvastatin, 3.52% placebo, P = 0.025) but not in Asians (3.02% rosuvastatin, 4.04% placebo, P = 0.0342), P interaction  = 0021., Conclusions: Candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide had fewer effects in reducing blood pressure in Chinese and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a lesser extent in Asians compared with non-Asians. There was no overall reduction in clinical events with lowering blood pressure in either Asians or non-Asians, whereas there were clear and consistent benefits with lipid lowering in both. Despite extensive analyses, we have no obvious explanation for the observed findings. Future studies need to include larger numbers of individuals from different regions of the world to ensure that the results of trials are applicable globally.

Background: Cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools help identify individuals likely to benefit from preventative therapies. In this study we compared outcomes using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk algorithm and the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) tool in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 study., Methods: We compared outcomes using the ACC/AHA algorithm and the FRS with those seen in HOPE-3, which randomized participants to 10 mg rosuvastatin or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, and revascularization., Results: Relative risks using risk scores were similar to those observed in the HOPE-3. Hazards ratios for the first coprimary outcome according to risk categories of ≤ 10%, 10%-20%, and ≥ 20% using the ACC/AHA algorithm were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.28), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.53-0.96), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.18%, 1.33%, and 1.85%, respectively, over a median of 5.6 years. Corresponding results using the FRS were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.36-1.35), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.52-1.01), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60- 0.94); and ARR of 1.32%, 0.61%, and 1.43%. Hazard ratios for the second coprimary outcome were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.51-1.14), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.56-0.95), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94); and ARR of 0.36%, 1.49%, and 1.85%, using the ACC/AHA algorithm and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.41-1.41), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52-0.95), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.94); and ARR of 1.08%, 0.83%, and 1.56% using the FRS., Conclusions: The pragmatic HOPE-3 trial approach identifies in an ethnically diverse primary prevention population individuals at intermediate risk who benefit from statin therapy using simple clinical characteristics without the need for complex, currently used risk assessment tools., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with recent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are at risk for early graft failure, which is associated with a risk of myocardial infarction and death. In the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone did not significantly reduce MACE., Objectives: This pre-planned substudy sought to determine whether the COMPASS treatments are more effective than aspirin alone for preventing graft failure and MACE after CABG surgery., Methods: The substudy randomized 1,448 COMPASS trial patients 4 to 14 days after CABG surgery to receive the combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban alone, or aspirin alone. The primary outcome was graft failure, diagnosed by computed tomography angiogram 1 year after surgery., Results: The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and the regimen of rivaroxaban alone did not reduce the graft failure rates compared with aspirin alone (combination vs. aspirin: 113 [9.1%] vs. 91 [8.0%] failed grafts; odds ratio [OR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.57; p = 0.45; rivaroxaban alone vs. aspirin: 92 [7.8%] vs. 92 [8.0%] failed grafts; OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.33; p = 0.75). Compared with aspirin, the combination was associated with fewer MACE (12 [2.4%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.47; p = 0.34), whereas rivaroxaban alone was not (16 [3.3%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; HR: 0.99, CI: 0.50 to 1.99; p = 0.98). There was no fatal bleeding or tamponade within 30 days of randomization., Conclusions: The combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone compared with aspirin alone did not reduce graft failure in patients with recent CABG surgery, but the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with similar reductions in MACE, as observed in the larger COMPASS trial. (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS [COMPASS]; NCT01776424)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A sea change in the management of diabetes is occurring with the publication of clinical trials showing unequivocal cardiovascular (CV) protection through the use of certain antihyperglycemic agents. This change is similar to the change that occurred when lipid lowering with statins was first shown to have CV benefits, an event necessitating changes in training and the proactive treatment of lipids by CV specialists. As was the case then, many CV specialists currently feel poorly equipped to address diabetes with this new information even though diabetes is common in CV practice. The purpose of this overview is to provide an updated, comprehensive, and evidence-based CV protection plan for patients with type 2 diabetes, intended specifically for cardiologists and vascular medicine specialists. We attempt to elucidate a set of "CardioDiabetes" core competencies by merging the CV-relevant elements of the Diabetes Canada 2018 guidelines within a framework of comprehensive vascular protection as supported by other CV guidelines. We review the rationale for measuring hemoglobin A1C, understanding its use for establishing a diagnosis and for monitoring treatment. We also provide a brief review of the medications most important for a CV specialist to know. We provide useful memory aids and a succinct set of reminders and tips ("ABCDEFR'S") that can serve as a comprehensive checklist in the clinic and help to motivate trainees and clinicians to consult the original guideline source documents to enrich their knowledge and improve treatment in this rapidly changing arena., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Current guidelines of hypertensive management recommend upper limits for systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). J-curve associations of BP with risk exist for some outcomes suggesting that lower limits of DBP goals may also apply. We examined the association between mean attained DBP and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients who achieved an on-treatment SBP in the range of 120 to <140 mmHg in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant participants with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) trials on patients with high CV risk. This SBP range was associated with the lowest CV risk., Methods: We analysed the outcome data from patients age 55 years or older with CV disease from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials that randomized high-risk patients to ramipril, telmisartan, and the combination. In patients with controlled SBP (on-treatment 120 to <140 mmHg), the composite outcome of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke and hospital admission for heart failure, the components thereof, and all-cause mortality were analysed according to mean on-treatment DBP as categorical (<70, 70 to <80, 80 to <90, and ≥90 mmHg) and continuous variable as well as the change of DBP according to baseline DBP. Pulse pressure (PP) was related to outcomes as a continuous variable., Results: In 16 099 of 31 546 patients, mean achieved SBP was 120 to <140 mmHg. The nominally lowest risk for all outcomes was observed at an achieved DBP of 70 to <80 mmHg. A higher achieved DBP was associated with a higher risk for the outcomes of stroke and of hospitalization for heart failure (≥80 mmHg) and myocardial infarction (≥90 mmHg). A lower achieved DBP (<70 mmHg) was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15-1.45; P < 0.0001], myocardial infarction HR 1.54 (95% CI 1.26-1.88, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization for heart failure HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.47-2.24, P < 0.0001) and all-cause death (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.35; P < 0.0001) while there was no signal for stroke and CV death compared to DBP 70 to <80 mmHg. A decrease of DBP was associated with lower risk when baseline DBP was >80 mmHg. The associations to outcomes were similar when patients were divided to SBP 120 to <130 mmHg or 130 to <140 mmHg for DBP or PP., Conclusion: Compared to a DBP of 70 to <80 mmHg, lower and higher DBP was associated with a higher risk in patients achieving a SBP of 120 to <140 mmHg. Associations of DBP and PP to risk were similar notably at controlled SBP. These data suggest at optimal achieved SBP, risk is still defined by low or high DBP. These findings support guidelines which take DBP at optimal SBP control into consideration.

Background: It is not clear whether the effects of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications are influenced by adherence to healthy lifestyle factors. We assessed the effects of both drug interventions in subgroups by the number of healthy lifestyle factors in participants in the HOPE-3 (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial., Methods and Results: In this primary prevention trial, 4 healthy lifestyle factors (nonsmoking status, physical activity, optimal body weight, and healthy diet) were recorded in 12 521 participants who were at intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and were randomized to rosuvastatin, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, their combination, or matched placebos. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. The outcome was a composite of CVD events. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors had a lower rate of CVD compared with those with fewer factors (HR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-1.00). Rosuvastatin reduced CVD events in participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) and in participants with <2 factors (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.01). Consistent results were observed with combination therapy (≥2 factors: HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; <2 factors: HR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.88). Candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide tends to reduce CVD only in participants with <2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00)., Conclusions: Healthy lifestyles are associated with lower CVD. Rosuvastatin alone and combined with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide is beneficial regardless of healthy lifestyle status; however, the benefit of antihypertensive treatment appears to be limited to patients with less healthy lifestyles., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00239681., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objectives: Based on a growing body of evidence implicating low vitamin D status in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), we hypothesized that in Canadian HIV-positive adults, low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration would be associated with increased subclinical vascular disease progression., Methods: We prospectively studied the relationship between baseline 25(OH)D and subsequent progression of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) between 2002 and 2011, in the Canadian HIV Vascular Study using stored blood specimens., Results: Of the 128 participants, 89.1% were men, the mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 46.5 (8.2) years, 93.8% were white, and 36.7% were current smokers. Mean (SD) annual CIMT follow-up was 5.9 (1.8) years (maximum 8.5 years), providing approximately 750 patient-years of follow-up. Mean (SD) CIMT progression was 0.027 (0.030) mm/year. Mean (SD) 25(OH)D was 95.0 (46.9) nmol/L. Only 13.3% of participants were vitamin D deficient (25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L), whereas 61.7% had a 25(OH)D exceeding the sufficiency threshold (75 nmol/L). Vitamin D quartiles were inversely associated with body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.034), total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio (P = 0.001) and parathyroid hormone concentration (P = 0.003), but not efavirenz exposure (P = 0.141). In linear regression analyses, baseline 25(OH)D as a continuous variable was inversely associated with CIMT progression in univariable (P < 0.001) and multivariable (P < 0.001) models., Conclusions: Baseline 25(OH)D was associated with CIMT progression in this relatively vitamin D replete, predominately white and male, Canadian HIV-positive population. Future research needs to establish causality as this may warrant more targeted screening or supplementation., (© 2017 British HIV Association.)