Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai

Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials

BACKGROUND Trials of statin therapy have had conflicting findings on the risk of development of diabetes mellitus in patients given statins. We aimed to establish by a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data whether any relation exists between statin use and development of diabetes. METHODS We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1994 to 2009, for randomised controlled endpoint trials of statins. We included only trials with more than 1000 patients, with identical follow-up in both groups and duration of more than 1 year. We excluded trials of patients with organ transplants or who needed haemodialysis. We used the I(2) statistic to measure heterogeneity between trials and calculated risk estimates for incident diabetes with random-effect meta-analysis. FINDINGS We identified 13 statin trials with 91 140 participants, of whom 4278 (2226 assigned statins and 2052 assigned control treatment) developed diabetes during a mean of 4 years. Statin therapy was associated with a 9% increased risk for incident diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.09; 95% CI 1.02-1.17), with little heterogeneity (I(2)=11%) between trials. Meta-regression showed that risk of development of diabetes with statins was highest in trials with older participants, but neither baseline body-mass index nor change in LDL-cholesterol concentrations accounted for residual variation in risk. Treatment of 255 (95% CI 150-852) patients with statins for 4 years resulted in one extra case of diabetes. INTERPRETATION Statin therapy is associated with a slightly increased risk of development of diabetes, but the risk is low both in absolute terms and when compared with the reduction in coronary events. Clinical practice in patients with moderate or high cardiovascular risk or existing cardiovascular disease should not change. FUNDING None.

Diabetes Mellitus, Fasting Glucose, and Risk of Cause-Specific Death

BACKGROUND The extent to which diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia is related to risk of death from cancer or other nonvascular conditions is uncertain. METHODS We calculated hazard ratios for cause-specific death, according to baseline diabetes status or fasting glucose level, from individual-participant data on 123,205 deaths among 820,900 people in 97 prospective studies. RESULTS After adjustment for age, sex, smoking status, and body-mass index, hazard ratios among persons with diabetes as compared with persons without diabetes were as follows: 1.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71 to 1.90) for death from any cause, 1.25 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.31) for death from cancer, 2.32 (95% CI, 2.11 to 2.56) for death from vascular causes, and 1.73 (95% CI, 1.62 to 1.85) for death from other causes. Diabetes (vs. no diabetes) was moderately associated with death from cancers of the liver, pancreas, ovary, colorectum, lung, bladder, and breast. Aside from cancer and vascular disease, diabetes (vs. no diabetes) was also associated with death from renal disease, liver disease, pneumonia and other infectious diseases, mental disorders, nonhepatic digestive diseases, external causes, intentional self-harm, nervous-system disorders, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Hazard ratios were appreciably reduced after further adjustment for glycemia measures, but not after adjustment for systolic blood pressure, lipid levels, inflammation or renal markers. Fasting glucose levels exceeding 100 mg per deciliter (5.6 mmol per liter), but not levels of 70 to 100 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 5.6 mmol per liter), were associated with death. A 50-year-old with diabetes died, on average, 6 years earlier than a counterpart without diabetes, with about 40% of the difference in survival attributable to excess nonvascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS In addition to vascular disease, diabetes is associated with substantial premature death from several cancers, infectious diseases, external causes, intentional self-harm, and degenerative disorders, independent of several major risk factors. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others.).

Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND Whether intensive control of glucose reduces macrovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to determine whether intensive treatment is beneficial. METHODS We selected five prospective randomised controlled trials of 33 040 participants to assess the effect of an intensive glucose-lowering regimen on death and cardiovascular outcomes compared with a standard regimen. We gathered information about events of non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction), stroke, and all-cause mortality, and did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain summary effect estimates for the clinical outcomes with use of odds ratios calculated from the raw data of every trial. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was assessed with the chi(2) and I(2) statistics. FINDINGS The five trials provided information on 1497 events of non-fatal myocardial infarction, 2318 of coronary heart disease, 1127 of stroke, and 2892 of all-cause mortality during about 163 000 person-years of follow-up. The mean haemoglobin A(1c) concentration (HbA(1c)) was 0.9% lower for participants given intensive treatment than for those given standard treatment. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a 17% reduction in events of non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.93), and a 15% reduction in events of coronary heart disease (0.85, 0.77-0.93). Intensive glycaemic control had no significant effect on events of stroke (0.93, 0.81-1.06) or all-cause mortality (1.02, 0.87-1.19). INTERPRETATION Overall, intensive compared with standard glycaemic control significantly reduces coronary events without an increased risk of death. However, the optimum mechanism, speed, and extent of HbA(1c) reduction might be different in differing populations. FUNDING None.

Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that statin therapy is associated with excess risk of developing diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether intensive-dose statin therapy is associated with increased risk of new-onset diabetes compared with moderate-dose statin therapy. DATA SOURCES We identified relevant trials in a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 1, 1996, through March 31, 2011). Unpublished data were obtained from investigators. STUDY SELECTION We included randomized controlled end-point trials that compared intensive-dose statin therapy with moderate-dose statin therapy and included more than 1000 participants who were followed up for more than 1 year. DATA EXTRACTION Tabular data provided for each trial described baseline characteristics and numbers of participants developing diabetes and experiencing major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, coronary revascularization). We calculated trial-specific odds ratios (ORs) for new-onset diabetes and major cardiovascular events and combined these using random-effects model meta-analysis. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS In 5 statin trials with 32,752 participants without diabetes at baseline, 2749 developed diabetes (1449 assigned intensive-dose therapy, 1300 assigned moderate-dose therapy, representing 2.0 additional cases in the intensive-dose group per 1000 patient-years) and 6684 experienced cardiovascular events (3134 and 3550, respectively, representing 6.5 fewer cases in the intensive-dose group per 1000 patient-years) over a weighted mean (SD) follow-up of 4.9 (1.9) years. Odds ratios were 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.22; I(2) = 0%) for new-onset diabetes and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.94; I(2) = 74%) for cardiovascular events for participants receiving intensive therapy compared with moderate-dose therapy. As compared with moderate-dose statin therapy, the number needed to harm per year for intensive-dose statin therapy was 498 for new-onset diabetes while the number needed to treat per year for intensive-dose statin therapy was 155 for cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION In a pooled analysis of data from 5 statin trials, intensive-dose statin therapy was associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes compared with moderate-dose statin therapy.

Effect of Aspirin on Vascular and Nonvascular Outcomes: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND The net benefit of aspirin in prevention of CVD and nonvascular events remains unclear. Our objective was to assess the impact (and safety) of aspirin on vascular and nonvascular outcomes in primary prevention. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials (up to June 2011) and unpublished trial data from investigators. STUDY SELECTION Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials with at least 1000 participants each, reporting on cardiovascular disease (CVD), nonvascular outcomes, or death were included. DATA EXTRACTION Three authors abstracted data. Study-specific odds ratios (ORs) were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. Risks vs benefits were evaluated by comparing CVD risk reductions with increases in bleeding. RESULTS During a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.0 (2.1) years involving over 100, 000 participants, aspirin treatment reduced total CVD events by 10% (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96; number needed to treat, 120), driven primarily by reduction in nonfatal MI (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.96; number needed to treat, 162). There was no significant reduction in CVD death (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.15) or cancer mortality (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03), and there was increased risk of nontrivial bleeding events (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.50; number needed to harm, 73). Significant heterogeneity was observed for coronary heart disease and bleeding outcomes, which could not be accounted for by major demographic or participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS Despite important reductions in nonfatal MI, aspirin prophylaxis in people without prior CVD does not lead to reductions in either cardiovascular death or cancer mortality. Because the benefits are further offset by clinically important bleeding events, routine use of aspirin for primary prevention is not warranted and treatment decisions need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Inflammatory cytokines and risk of coronary heart disease: new prospective study and updated meta-analysis

AIMS Because low-grade inflammation may play a role in the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease (CHD), and pro-inflammatory cytokines govern inflammatory cascades, this study aimed to assess the associations of several pro-inflammatory cytokines and CHD risk in a new prospective study, including meta-analysis of prospective studies. METHODS AND RESULTS Interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-18, matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L), and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were measured at baseline in a case-cohort study of 1514 participants and 833 incident CHD events within population-based prospective cohorts at the Danish Research Centre for Prevention and Health. Age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for CHD per 1-SD higher log-transformed baseline levels were: 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.54) for IL-6, 1.26 (1.11-1.44) for IL-18, 1.30 (1.16-1.46) for MMP-9, 1.01 (0.89-1.15) for sCD40L, and 1.13 (1.01-1.27) for TNF-α. Multivariable adjustment for conventional vascular risk factors attenuated the HRs to: 1.26 (1.08-1.46) for IL-6, 1.12 (0.95-1.31) for IL-18, 1.21 (1.05-1.39) for MMP-9, 0.93 (0.78-1.11) for sCD40L, and 1.14 (1.00-1.31) for TNF-α. In meta-analysis of up to 29 population-based prospective studies, adjusted relative risks for non-fatal MI or CHD death per 1-SD higher levels were: 1.25 (1.19-1.32) for IL-6; 1.13 (1.05-1.20) for IL-18; 1.07 (0.97-1.19) for MMP-9; 1.07 (0.95-1.21) for sCD40L; and 1.17 (1.09-1.25) for TNF-α. CONCLUSIONS Several different pro-inflammatory cytokines are each associated with CHD risk independent of conventional risk factors and in an approximately log-linear manner. The findings lend support to the inflammation hypothesis in vascular disease, but further studies are needed to assess causality.

Glycated Hemoglobin Measurement and Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease

IMPORTANCE The value of measuring levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) for the prediction of first cardiovascular events is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether adding information on HbA1c values to conventional cardiovascular risk factors is associated with improvement in prediction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Analysis of individual-participant data available from 73 prospective studies involving 294,998 participants without a known history of diabetes mellitus or CVD at the baseline assessment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Measures of risk discrimination for CVD outcomes (eg, C-index) and reclassification (eg, net reclassification improvement) of participants across predicted 10-year risk categories of low (<5%), intermediate (5% to <7.5%), and high (≥ 7.5%) risk. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 9.9 (interquartile range, 7.6-13.2) years, 20,840 incident fatal and nonfatal CVD outcomes (13,237 coronary heart disease and 7603 stroke outcomes) were recorded. In analyses adjusted for several conventional cardiovascular risk factors, there was an approximately J-shaped association between HbA1c values and CVD risk. The association between HbA1c values and CVD risk changed only slightly after adjustment for total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations or estimated glomerular filtration rate, but this association attenuated somewhat after adjustment for concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and C-reactive protein. The C-index for a CVD risk prediction model containing conventional cardiovascular risk factors alone was 0.7434 (95% CI, 0.7350 to 0.7517). The addition of information on HbA1c was associated with a C-index change of 0.0018 (0.0003 to 0.0033) and a net reclassification improvement of 0.42 (-0.63 to 1.48) for the categories of predicted 10-year CVD risk. The improvement provided by HbA1c assessment in prediction of CVD risk was equal to or better than estimated improvements for measurement of fasting, random, or postload plasma glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In a study of individuals without known CVD or diabetes, additional assessment of HbA1c values in the context of CVD risk assessment provided little incremental benefit for prediction of CVD risk.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia: A global call to arms.

Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is the commonest autosomal co-dominantly inherited condition affecting man. It is caused by mutation in one of three genes, encoding the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor, or the gene for apolipoprotein B (which is the major protein component of the LDL particle), or in the gene coding for PCSK9 (which is involved in the degradation of the LDL-receptor during its cellular recycling). These mutations result in impaired LDL metabolism, leading to life-long elevations in LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and development of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) [1], [2] and [3]. If left untreated, the relative risk of premature coronary artery disease is significantly higher in heterozygous patients than unaffected individuals, with most untreated homozygotes developing ASCVD before the age of 20 and generally not surviving past 30 years [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Although early detection and treatment with statins and other LDL-C lowering therapies can improve survival, FH remains widely underdiagnosed and undertreated [1], thereby representing a major global public health challenge.

Pooling and expanding registries of familial hypercholesterolaemia to assess gaps in care and improve disease management and outcomes: Rationale and design of the global EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration

BACKGROUND The potential for global collaborations to better inform public health policy regarding major non-communicable diseases has been successfully demonstrated by several large-scale international consortia. However, the true public health impact of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), a common genetic disorder associated with premature cardiovascular disease, is yet to be reliably ascertained using similar approaches. The European Atherosclerosis Society FH Studies Collaboration (EAS FHSC) is a new initiative of international stakeholders which will help establish a global FH registry to generate large-scale, robust data on the burden of FH worldwide. METHODS The EAS FHSC will maximise the potential exploitation of currently available and future FH data (retrospective and prospective) by bringing together regional/national/international data sources with access to individuals with a clinical and/or genetic diagnosis of heterozygous or homozygous FH. A novel bespoke electronic platform and FH Data Warehouse will be developed to allow secure data sharing, validation, cleaning, pooling, harmonisation and analysis irrespective of the source or format. Standard statistical procedures will allow us to investigate cross-sectional associations, patterns of real-world practice, trends over time, and analyse risk and outcomes (e.g. cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause death), accounting for potential confounders and subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS The EAS FHSC represents an excellent opportunity to integrate individual efforts across the world to tackle the global burden of FH. The information garnered from the registry will help reduce gaps in knowledge, inform best practices, assist in clinical trials design, support clinical guidelines and policies development, and ultimately improve the care of FH patients.

Statin pretreatment and risk of in-hospital atrial fibrillation among patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a collaborative meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials

AIMS Statin pretreatment in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is understood to prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF). However, this is based on observational and limited randomized trial evidence, resulting in uncertainty about any genuine anti-arrhythmic benefits of these agents in this setting. We therefore aimed to quantify precisely the association between statin pretreatment and postoperative AF among patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS A detailed search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases (1st January 1996 to 31st July 2012) was conducted, followed by a review of the reference lists of published studies and correspondence with trial investigators to obtain individual-participant data for meta-analysis. Evidence was combined across prospective, randomized clinical trials that compared the risk of postoperative AF among individuals randomized to statin pretreatment or placebo/control medication before elective cardiac surgery. Postoperative AF was defined as episodes of AF lasting ≥5 min. Overall, 1105 participants from 11 trials were included; of them, 552 received statin therapy preoperatively. Postoperative AF occurred in 19% of these participants when compared with 36% of those not treated with statins (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.54, P < 0.00001, using a random-effects model). Atrial fibrillation prevention by statin pretreatment was consistent across different subgroups. CONCLUSION Short-term statin pretreatment may reduce the risk of postoperative AF among patients undergoing cardiac surgery.