Kazem Rahimi

Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women after Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND Radiotherapy for breast cancer often involves some incidental exposure of the heart to ionizing radiation. The effect of this exposure on the subsequent risk of ischemic heart disease is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a population-based case-control study of major coronary events (i.e., myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or death from ischemic heart disease) in 2168 women who underwent radiotherapy for breast cancer between 1958 and 2001 in Sweden and Denmark; the study included 963 women with major coronary events and 1205 controls. Individual patient information was obtained from hospital records. For each woman, the mean radiation doses to the whole heart and to the left anterior descending coronary artery were estimated from her radiotherapy chart. RESULTS The overall average of the mean doses to the whole heart was 4.9 Gy (range, 0.03 to 27.72). Rates of major coronary events increased linearly with the mean dose to the heart by 7.4% per gray (95% confidence interval, 2.9 to 14.5; P<0.001), with no apparent threshold. The increase started within the first 5 years after radiotherapy and continued into the third decade after radiotherapy. The proportional increase in the rate of major coronary events per gray was similar in women with and women without cardiac risk factors at the time of radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Exposure of the heart to ionizing radiation during radiotherapy for breast cancer increases the subsequent rate of ischemic heart disease. The increase is proportional to the mean dose to the heart, begins within a few years after exposure, and continues for at least 20 years. Women with preexisting cardiac risk factors have greater absolute increases in risk from radiotherapy than other women. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others.).

Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, the extent to which these effects differ by baseline blood pressure, presence of comorbidities, or drug class is less clear. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these differences. METHOD For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE for large-scale blood pressure lowering trials, published between Jan 1, 1966, and July 7, 2015, and we searched the medical literature to identify trials up to Nov 9, 2015. All randomised controlled trials of blood pressure lowering treatment were eligible for inclusion if they included a minimum of 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm. No trials were excluded because of presence of baseline comorbidities, and trials of antihypertensive drugs for indications other than hypertension were eligible. We extracted summary-level data about study characteristics and the outcomes of major cardiovascular disease events, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, renal failure, and all-cause mortality. We used inverse variance weighted fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool the estimates. RESULTS We identified 123 studies with 613,815 participants for the tabular meta-analysis. Meta-regression analyses showed relative risk reductions proportional to the magnitude of the blood pressure reductions achieved. Every 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular disease events (relative risk [RR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·77-0·83), coronary heart disease (0·83, 0·78-0·88), stroke (0·73, 0·68-0·77), and heart failure (0·72, 0·67-0·78), which, in the populations studied, led to a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (0·87, 0·84-0·91). However, the effect on renal failure was not significant (0·95, 0·84-1·07). Similar proportional risk reductions (per 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) were noted in trials with higher mean baseline systolic blood pressure and trials with lower mean baseline systolic blood pressure (all ptrend>0·05). There was no clear evidence that proportional risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease differed by baseline disease history, except for diabetes and chronic kidney disease, for which smaller, but significant, risk reductions were detected. β blockers were inferior to other drugs for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and renal failure. Calcium channel blockers were superior to other drugs for the prevention of stroke. For the prevention of heart failure, calcium channel blockers were inferior and diuretics were superior to other drug classes. Risk of bias was judged to be low for 113 trials and unclear for 10 trials. Heterogeneity for outcomes was low to moderate; the I(2) statistic for heterogeneity for major cardiovascular disease events was 41%, for coronary heart disease 25%, for stroke 26%, for heart failure 37%, for renal failure 28%, and for all-cause mortality 35%. INTERPRETATION Blood pressure lowering significantly reduces vascular risk across various baseline blood pressure levels and comorbidities. Our results provide strong support for lowering blood pressure to systolic blood pressures less than 130 mm Hg and providing blood pressure lowering treatment to individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research and Oxford Martin School.

10-year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): a multicentre randomised trial.

Summary Background If carotid artery narrowing remains asymptomatic (ie, has caused no recent stroke or other neurological symptoms), successful carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces stroke incidence for some years. We assessed the long-term effects of successful CEA. Methods Between 1993 and 2003, 3120 asymptomatic patients from 126 centres in 30 countries were allocated equally, by blinded minimised randomisation, to immediate CEA (median delay 1 month, IQR 0·3–2·5) or to indefinite deferral of any carotid procedure, and were followed up until death or for a median among survivors of 9 years (IQR 6–11). The primary outcomes were perioperative mortality and morbidity (death or stroke within 30 days) and non-perioperative stroke. Kaplan-Meier percentages and logrank p values are from intention-to-treat analyses. This study is registered, number ISRCTN26156392. Findings 1560 patients were allocated immediate CEA versus 1560 allocated deferral of any carotid procedure. The proportions operated on while still asymptomatic were 89·7% versus 4·8% at 1 year (and 92·1% vs 16·5% at 5 years). Perioperative risk of stroke or death within 30 days was 3·0% (95% CI 2·4–3·9; 26 non-disabling strokes plus 34 disabling or fatal perioperative events in 1979 CEAs). Excluding perioperative events and non-stroke mortality, stroke risks (immediate vs deferred CEA) were 4·1% versus 10·0% at 5 years (gain 5·9%, 95% CI 4·0–7·8) and 10·8% versus 16·9% at 10 years (gain 6·1%, 2·7–9·4); ratio of stroke incidence rates 0·54, 95% CI 0·43–0·68, p<0·0001. 62 versus 104 had a disabling or fatal stroke, and 37 versus 84 others had a non-disabling stroke. Combining perioperative events and strokes, net risks were 6·9% versus 10·9% at 5 years (gain 4·1%, 2·0–6·2) and 13·4% versus 17·9% at 10 years (gain 4·6%, 1·2–7·9). Medication was similar in both groups; throughout the study, most were on antithrombotic and antihypertensive therapy. Net benefits were significant both for those on lipid-lowering therapy and for those not, and both for men and for women up to 75 years of age at entry (although not for older patients). Interpretation Successful CEA for asymptomatic patients younger than 75 years of age reduces 10-year stroke risks. Half this reduction is in disabling or fatal strokes. Net benefit in future patients will depend on their risks from unoperated carotid lesions (which will be reduced by medication), on future surgical risks (which might differ from those in trials), and on whether life expectancy exceeds 10 years. Funding UK Medical Research Council, BUPA Foundation, Stroke Association.

Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial

Summary Background Lowering of LDL cholesterol reduces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is uncertain. We aimed to establish efficacy and safety of more intensive statin treatment in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Methods We undertook a double-blind randomised trial in 12 064 men and women aged 18–80 years with a history of myocardial infarction. Participants were either currently on or had clear indication for statin therapy, and had a total cholesterol concentration of at least 3·5 mmol/L if already on a statin or 4·5 mmol/L if not. Randomisation to either 80 mg or 20 mg simvastatin daily was done centrally using a minimisation algorithm. Participants were assessed at 2, 4, 8, and 12 months after randomisation and then every 6 months until final follow-up. The primary endpoint was major vascular events, defined as coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74348595. Findings 6031 participants were allocated 80 mg simvastatin daily, and 6033 allocated 20 mg simvastatin daily. During a mean follow-up of 6·7 (SD 1·5) years, allocation to 80 mg simvastatin produced an average 0·35 (SE 0·01) mmol/L greater reduction in LDL cholesterol compared with allocation to 20 mg. Major vascular events occurred in 1477 (24·5%) participants allocated 80 mg simvastatin versus 1553 (25·7%) of those allocated 20 mg, corresponding to a 6% proportional reduction (risk ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·88–1·01; p=0·10). There were no apparent differences in numbers of haemorrhagic strokes (24 [0·4%] vs 25 [0·4%]) or deaths attributed to vascular (565 [9·4%] vs 572 [9·5%]) or non-vascular (399 [6·6%] vs 398 [6·6%]) causes. Compared with two (0·03%) cases of myopathy in patients taking 20 mg simvastatin daily, there were 53 (0·9%) cases in the 80 mg group. Interpretation The 6% (SE 3·5%) reduction in major vascular events with a further 0·35 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in our trial is consistent with previous trials. Myopathy was increased with 80 mg simvastatin daily, but intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol can be achieved safely with other regimens. Funding Merck; The Clinical Trial Service Unit also receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.BACKGROUND Lowering of LDL cholesterol reduces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is uncertain. We aimed to establish efficacy and safety of more intensive statin treatment in patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS We undertook a double-blind randomised trial in 12,064 men and women aged 18-80 years with a history of myocardial infarction. Participants were either currently on or had clear indication for statin therapy, and had a total cholesterol concentration of at least 3·5 mmol/L if already on a statin or 4·5 mmol/L if not. Randomisation to either 80 mg or 20 mg simvastatin daily was done centrally using a minimisation algorithm. Participants were assessed at 2, 4, 8, and 12 months after randomisation and then every 6 months until final follow-up. The primary endpoint was major vascular events, defined as coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74348595. FINDINGS 6031 participants were allocated 80 mg simvastatin daily, and 6033 allocated 20 mg simvastatin daily. During a mean follow-up of 6·7 (SD 1·5) years, allocation to 80 mg simvastatin produced an average 0·35 (SE 0·01) mmol/L greater reduction in LDL cholesterol compared with allocation to 20 mg. Major vascular events occurred in 1477 (24·5%) participants allocated 80 mg simvastatin versus 1553 (25·7%) of those allocated 20 mg, corresponding to a 6% proportional reduction (risk ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·88-1·01; p=0·10). There were no apparent differences in numbers of haemorrhagic strokes (24 [0·4%] vs 25 [0·4%]) or deaths attributed to vascular (565 [9·4%] vs 572 [9·5%]) or non-vascular (399 [6·6%] vs 398 [6·6%]) causes. Compared with two (0·03%) cases of myopathy in patients taking 20 mg simvastatin daily, there were 53 (0·9%) cases in the 80 mg group. INTERPRETATION The 6% (SE 3·5%) reduction in major vascular events with a further 0·35 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in our trial is consistent with previous trials. Myopathy was increased with 80 mg simvastatin daily, but intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol can be achieved safely with other regimens. FUNDING Merck; The Clinical Trial Service Unit also receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

Blood Pressure Lowering in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Lowering blood pressure (BP) is widely used to reduce vascular risk in individuals with diabetes. OBJECTIVE To determine the associations between BP-lowering treatment and vascular disease in type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION We searched MEDLINE for large-scale randomized controlled trials of BP-lowering treatment including patients with diabetes, published between January 1966 and October 2014. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and vascular outcome data. Estimates were stratified by baseline BP and achieved BP, and pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, heart failure, retinopathy, new or worsening albuminuria, and renal failure. RESULTS Forty trials judged to be of low risk of bias (100,354 participants) were included. Each 10-mm Hg lower systolic BP was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96); absolute risk reduction (ARR) in events per 1000 patient-years (3.16; 95% CI, 0.90-5.22), cardiovascular events (RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.83-0.95]; ARR, 3.90 [95% CI, 1.57-6.06]), coronary heart disease (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.98]; ARR, 1.81 [95% CI, 0.35-3.11]), stroke (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64-0.83]; ARR, 4.06 [95% CI, 2.53-5.40]), albuminuria (RR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.79-0.87]; ARR, 9.33 [95% CI, 7.13-11.37]), and retinopathy (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76-0.99]; ARR, 2.23 [95% CI, 0.15-4.04]). When trials were stratified by mean baseline systolic BP at greater than or less than 140 mm Hg, RRs for outcomes other than stroke, retinopathy, and renal failure were lower in studies with greater baseline systolic BP (P interaction <0.1). The associations between BP-lowering treatments and outcomes were not significantly different, irrespective of drug class, except for stroke and heart failure. Estimates were similar when all trials, regardless of risk of bias, were included. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with type 2 diabetes, BP lowering was associated with improved mortality and other clinical outcomes with lower RRs observed among those with baseline BP of 140 mm Hg and greater. These findings support the use of medications for BP lowering in these patients.

Effects of homocysteine-lowering with folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs placebo on mortality and major morbidity in myocardial infarction survivors: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT Blood homocysteine levels are positively associated with cardiovascular disease, but it is uncertain whether the association is causal. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of reducing homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) on vascular and nonvascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Double-blind randomized controlled trial of 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction in secondary care hospitals in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2008. INTERVENTIONS 2 mg folic acid plus 1 mg vitamin B(12) daily vs matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES First major vascular event, defined as major coronary event (coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), fatal or nonfatal stroke, or noncoronary revascularization. RESULTS Allocation to the study vitamins reduced homocysteine by a mean of 3.8 micromol/L (28%). During 6.7 years of follow-up, major vascular events occurred in 1537 of 6033 participants (25.5%) allocated folic acid plus vitamin B(12) vs 1493 of 6031 participants (24.8%) allocated placebo (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.12; P = .28). There were no apparent effects on major coronary events (vitamins, 1229 [20.4%], vs placebo, 1185 [19.6%]; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13), stroke (vitamins, 269 [4.5%], vs placebo, 265 [4.4%]; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21), or noncoronary revascularizations (vitamins, 178 [3.0%], vs placebo, 152 [2.5%]; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46). Nor were there significant differences in the numbers of deaths attributed to vascular causes (vitamins, 578 [9.6%], vs placebo, 559 [9.3%]) or nonvascular causes (vitamins, 405 [6.7%], vs placebo, 392 [6.5%]) or in the incidence of any cancer (vitamins, 678 [11.2%], vs placebo, 639 [10.6%]). CONCLUSION Substantial long-term reductions in blood homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation did not have beneficial effects on vascular outcomes but were also not associated with adverse effects on cancer incidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN74348595.

Incidence of heart disease in 35,000 women treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer in Denmark and Sweden.

PURPOSE To study incidence of radiation-related heart disease in a large population of breast cancer patients followed for up to 30 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS 72,134 women diagnosed with breast cancer in Denmark or Sweden during 1976-2006 and followed prospectively. Radiation-related risk was studied by comparing women with left-sided and right-sided tumours. RESULTS 34,825 women (48%) received radiotherapy. Among unirradiated women tumour laterality had little relevance to heart disease. Among irradiated women mean dose to the whole heart was 6.3 Gy for left-sided tumours and 2.7 Gy for right-sided tumours. Mortality was similar in irradiated women with left-sided and right-sided tumours, but incidence ratios, left-sided versus right-sided, were raised: acute myocardial infarction 1.22 (95% CI 1.06-1.42), angina 1.25 (1.05-1.49), pericarditis 1.61 (1.06-2.43), valvular heart disease 1.54 (1.11-2.13). Incidence ratios for all heart disease were as high for women irradiated since 1990 (1.09 [1.00-1.19]) as for women irradiated during 1976-1989 (1.08 [0.99-1.17]), and were higher for women diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease prior to breast cancer than for other women (1.58 [1.19-2.10] versus 1.08 [1.01-1.15], p for difference=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Breast cancer radiotherapy has, at least until recently, increased the risk of developing ischaemic heart disease, pericarditis and valvular disease. Women with ischaemic heart disease before breast cancer diagnosis may have incurred higher risks than others.

Effect of Cocoa Products on Blood Pressure: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND Cocoa products such as dark chocolate and cocoa beverages may have blood pressure (BP)-lowering properties due to their high content of plant-derived flavanols. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the antihypertensive effects of flavanol-rich cocoa products. The primary outcome measure was the change in systolic and diastolic BP between intervention and control groups. RESULTS In total, 10 randomized controlled trials comprising 297 individuals were included in the analysis. The populations studied were either healthy normotensive adults or patients with prehypertension/stage 1 hypertension. Treatment duration ranged from 2 to 18 weeks. The mean BP change in the active treatment arms across all trials was -4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -5.9 to -3.2, P < 0.001) for systolic BP and -2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.9 to -1.2, P < 0.001) for diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS The meta-analysis confirms the BP-lowering capacity of flavanol-rich cocoa products in a larger set of trials than previously reported. However, significant statistical heterogeneity across studies could be found, and questions such as the most appropriate dose and the long-term side effect profile warrant further investigation before cocoa products can be recommended as a treatment option in hypertension.

Changes in health in England, with analysis by English regions and areas of deprivation, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Summary Background In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Methods We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. Findings Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0–5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9–76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9–81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3–43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9–27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1–2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7–41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1–12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4–12·0]). Interpretation Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.

Changes in health in England with analysis by English region and areas of deprivation: findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Summary Background In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Methods We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. Findings Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0–5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9–76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9–81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3–43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9–27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1–2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7–41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1–12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4–12·0]). Interpretation Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.