ResearchPad - prevention-and-epidemiology https://www.researchpad.co Default RSS Feed en-us © 2020 Newgen KnowledgeWorks <![CDATA[Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and cardiac disease in Northern Italy]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/elastic_article_12431 To compare demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and outcomes of patients with and without concomitant cardiac disease, hospitalized for COVID-19 in Brescia, Lombardy, Italy.Methods and resultsThe study population includes 99 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our hospital between 4 March and 25 March 2020. Fifty-three patients with a history of cardiac disease were compared with 46 without cardiac disease. Among cardiac patients, 40% had a history of heart failure, 36% had atrial fibrillation, and 30% had coronary artery disease. Mean age was 67 ± 12 years, and 80 (81%) patients were males. No differences were found between cardiac and non-cardiac patients except for higher values of serum creatinine, N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide, and high sensitivity troponin T in cardiac patients. During hospitalization, 26% patients died, 15% developed thrombo-embolic events, 19% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 6% had septic shock. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease compared with the others (36% vs. 15%, log-rank P = 0.019; relative risk 2.35; 95% confidence interval 1.08–5.09). The rate of thrombo-embolic events and septic shock during the hospitalization was also higher in cardiac patients (23% vs. 6% and 11% vs. 0%, respectively).ConclusionsHospitalized patients with concomitant cardiac disease and COVID-19 have an extremely poor prognosis compared with subjects without a history of cardiac disease, with higher mortality, thrombo-embolic events, and septic shock rates. ]]> <![CDATA[Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/5c82b860d5eed0c484e626a2

Abstract

Aims

There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after ‘recalibration’, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.

Methods and results

Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at ‘high’ 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29–39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22–24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44–51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37–39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.

Conclusion

Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.

]]>
<![CDATA[An evaluation of the effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on the growth rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a randomized placebo-controlled trial (AARDVARK)]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/5b2a6926463d7e34daad2d4d

Aims

The AARDVARK (Aortic Aneurysmal Regression of Dilation: Value of ACE-Inhibition on RisK) trial investigated whether ACE-inhibition reduces small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) growth rate, independent of blood pressure (BP) lowering.

Methods and results

A three-arm, multi-centre, single-blind, and randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN51383267) was conducted in 14 hospitals in England. Subjects aged ≥55 years with AAA diameter 3.0–5.4 cm were randomized 1:1:1 to receive perindopril arginine 10 mg, or amlodipine 5 mg, or placebo and followed 3–6 monthly over 2 years. The primary outcome was aneurysm growth rate (based on external antero-posterior ultrasound measurements in the longitudinal plane), determined by multi-level modelling to provide maximum likelihood estimates. Two hundred and twenty-four subjects were randomized (2011–2013) to placebo (n = 79), perindopril (n = 73), or amlodipine (n = 72). Mean (SD) changes in mid-trial systolic BP (12 months) were 0.5 (14.3) mmHg, P = 0.78 compared with baseline, −9.5 (13.1) mmHg (P < 0.001), and −6.7 (12.0) mmHg (P < 0.001), respectively. No significant differences in the modelled annual growth rates were apparent [1.68 mm (SE 0.2), 1.77 mm (0.2), and 1.81 mm (0.2), respectively]. The estimated difference in annual growth between the perindopril and placebo groups was 0.08 mm (CI −0.50, 0.65). Similar numbers of AAAs in each group reached 5.5 cm diameter and/or underwent elective surgery: 11 receiving placebo, 10 perindopril, and 11 amlodipine.

Conclusion

Small AAA growth rates were lower than anticipated, but there was no significant impact of perindopril compared with placebo or placebo and amlodipine, combined despite more effective BP lowering.

]]>
<![CDATA[Modelling the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors vs. ezetimibe through LDL-C reductions in a Norwegian setting]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/5bfb3016d5eed0c484960f16

Abstract

Aims

Despite the success of statins, there remains unmet clinical need in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. New proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 55–65%. Two PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab, and alirocumab, were approved for use in Norway but not yet for reimbursement through public national insurance. We aim to explore the cost-effectiveness of these compared with available treatments in a Norwegian setting.

Methods and results

A state transition Markov model was developed to model the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors for prevention of coronary heart disease, ischaemic strokes, and death among high-risk patient subpopulations in Norway, in both primary and secondary settings. Evolocumab and alirocumab are compared against ezetimibe and standard treatment. Risk of CVD is based on population incidence rates and adjusted according to baseline risk factors. Preventative effect of treatment was modelled according to absolute reduction in LDL-C. PCSK9 inhibitors were never found to be cost-effective in primary prevention. In secondary prevention they were cost-effective only for older, high-risk patients. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratios were for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia patients and high-risk diabetics, with €63 200 and €68 400 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively.

Conclusion

High lifetime costs of PCSK9 inhibitors may not be offset by estimated health gains for most eligible patients. PCSK9 inhibitors are found in the model only to be cost-effective in secondary prevention for older patients with high absolute risk of CVD. This picture is likely to change as price decreases. Future research is needed to determine the long-term preventative effects of PCSK9 inhibitors.

]]>
<![CDATA[Proceedings from the 2nd European Clinical Consensus Conference for device-based therapies for hypertension: state of the art and considerations for the future]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/5bf9c8ecd5eed0c4844134c2

Abstract

]]>