Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed.
Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59–1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55–1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41–2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52–0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59–2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57–2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36–0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23–0.72]).
Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated.
Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The prevalence of diabetes, defined as self-reported or fasting glycemia ≥7 mmol/L, was documented in 119,666 adults from three high-income (HIC), seven upper-middle-income (UMIC), four lower-middle-income (LMIC), and four low-income (LIC) countries. Relationships between diabetes and its risk factors within these country groupings were assessed using multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: Age- and sex-adjusted diabetes prevalences were highest in the poorer countries and lowest in the wealthiest countries (LIC 12.3%, UMIC 11.1%, LMIC 8.7%, and HIC 6.6%; P < 0.0001). In the overall population, diabetes risk was higher with a 5-year increase in age (odds ratio 1.29 [95% CI 1.28-1.31]), male sex (1.19 [1.13-1.25]), urban residency (1.24 [1.11-1.38]), low versus high education level (1.10 [1.02-1.19]), low versus high physical activity (1.28 [1.20-1.38]), family history of diabetes (3.15 [3.00-3.31]), higher waist-to-hip ratio (highest vs. lowest quartile; 3.63 [3.33-3.96]), and BMI (≥35 vs. <25 kg/m(2); 2.76 [2.52-3.03]). The relationship between diabetes prevalence and both BMI and family history of diabetes differed in higher- versus lower-income country groups (P for interaction < 0.0001). After adjustment for all risk factors and ethnicity, diabetes prevalences continued to show a gradient (LIC 14.0%, LMIC 10.1%, UMIC 10.9%, and HIC 5.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional risk factors do not fully account for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries. These findings suggest that other factors are responsible for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries.
METHODS: The PURE study is a prospective, population-based cohort study of individuals aged 35-70 years who have been enrolled from 21 countries across five continents. The key outcomes were the incidence of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular diseases, cancers, injuries, respiratory diseases, and hospital admissions, and we calculated the age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence of these events per 1000 person-years.
FINDINGS: This analysis assesses the incidence of events in 162 534 participants who were enrolled in the first two phases of the PURE core study, between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2016, and who were assessed for a median of 9·5 years (IQR 8·5-10·9). During follow-up, 11 307 (7·0%) participants died, 9329 (5·7%) participants had cardiovascular disease, 5151 (3·2%) participants had a cancer, 4386 (2·7%) participants had injuries requiring hospital admission, 2911 (1·8%) participants had pneumonia, and 1830 (1·1%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cardiovascular disease occurred more often in LICs (7·1 cases per 1000 person-years) and in MICs (6·8 cases per 1000 person-years) than in HICs (4·3 cases per 1000 person-years). However, incident cancers, injuries, COPD, and pneumonia were most common in HICs and least common in LICs. Overall mortality rates in LICs (13·3 deaths per 1000 person-years) were double those in MICs (6·9 deaths per 1000 person-years) and four times higher than in HICs (3·4 deaths per 1000 person-years). This pattern of the highest mortality in LICs and the lowest in HICs was observed for all causes of death except cancer, where mortality was similar across country income levels. Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of deaths overall (40%) but accounted for only 23% of deaths in HICs (vs 41% in MICs and 43% in LICs), despite more cardiovascular disease risk factors (as judged by INTERHEART risk scores) in HICs and the fewest such risk factors in LICs. The ratio of deaths from cardiovascular disease to those from cancer was 0·4 in HICs, 1·3 in MICs, and 3·0 in LICs, and four upper-MICs (Argentina, Chile, Turkey, and Poland) showed ratios similar to the HICs. Rates of first hospital admission and cardiovascular disease medication use were lowest in LICs and highest in HICs.
INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 35-70 years, cardiovascular disease is the major cause of mortality globally. However, in HICs and some upper-MICs, deaths from cancer are now more common than those from cardiovascular disease, indicating a transition in the predominant causes of deaths in middle-age. As cardiovascular disease decreases in many countries, mortality from cancer will probably become the leading cause of death. The high mortality in poorer countries is not related to risk factors, but it might be related to poorer access to health care.
FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study enrolled 143,567 adults aged 35-70 years from 4 high-income countries (HIC), 12 middle-income countries (MIC), and 5 low-income countries (LIC). The mean follow-up was 9.0 ± 3.0 years.
RESULTS: Among those with diabetes, CVD rates (LIC 10.3, MIC 9.2, HIC 8.3 per 1,000 person-years, P < 0.001), all-cause mortality (LIC 13.8, MIC 7.2, HIC 4.2 per 1,000 person-years, P < 0.001), and CV mortality (LIC 5.7, MIC 2.2, HIC 1.0 per 1,000 person-years, P < 0.001) were considerably higher in LIC compared with MIC and HIC. Within LIC, mortality was higher in those in the lowest tertile of wealth index (low 14.7%, middle 10.8%, and high 6.5%). In contrast to HIC and MIC, the increased CV mortality in those with diabetes in LIC remained unchanged even after adjustment for behavioral risk factors and treatments (hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.89 [1.58-2.27] to 1.78 [1.36-2.34]).
CONCLUSIONS: CVD rates, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality were markedly higher among those with diabetes in LIC compared with MIC and HIC with mortality risk remaining unchanged even after adjustment for risk factors and treatments. There is an urgent need to improve access to care to those with diabetes in LIC to reduce the excess mortality rates, particularly among those in the poorer strata of society.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of nuts with mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
METHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study is a large multinational prospective cohort study of adults aged 35-70 y from 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries on 5 continents. Nut intake (tree nuts and ground nuts) was measured at the baseline visit, using country-specific validated FFQs. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality or major cardiovascular event [nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or heart failure].
RESULTS: We followed 124,329 participants (age = 50.7 y, SD = 10.2; 41.5% male) for a median of 9.5 y. We recorded 10,928 composite events [deaths (n = 8,662) or major cardiovascular events (n = 5,979)]. Higher nut intake (>120 g per wk compared with <30 g per mo) was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome of mortality or major cardiovascular event [multivariate HR (mvHR): 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96; P-trend = 0.0048]. Significant reductions in total (mvHR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.87; P-trend <0.0001), cardiovascular (mvHR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.92; P-trend = 0.048), and noncardiovascular mortality (mvHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.96; P-trend = 0.0046) with a trend to reduced cancer mortality (mvHR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.65, 1.00; P-trend = 0.081) were observed. No significant associations of nuts were seen with major CVD (mvHR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14), stroke (mvHR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.14; P-trend = 0.76), or MI (mvHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.04; P-trend = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: Higher nut intake was associated with lower mortality risk from both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline ECGs were collected in 153 152 middle-aged participants (ages 35-70 years) to document AF in two community-based studies, spanning 20 countries. Medication use and clinical outcome data (mean follow-up of 7.4 years) were available in one cohort. Cross-sectional analyses were performed to document the prevalence of AF and medication use, and associations between AF and clinical events were examined prospectively. Mean age of participants was 52.1 years, and 57.7% were female. Age and sex-standardized prevalence of AF varied 12-fold between regions; with the highest in North America, Europe, China, and Southeast Asia (270-360 cases per 100 000 persons); and lowest in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia (30-60 cases per 100 000 persons) (P
METHODS: A cross-section of 163,397 adults aged 35 to 70 years were recruited from 661 urban and rural communities in selected low-, middle- and high-income countries (complete data for this analysis from 151,619 participants). Using blood pressure measurements, self-reported health and household data, concentration indices adjusted for age, sex and urban-rural location, we estimate the magnitude of wealth-related inequalities in the levels of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in each of the 21 country samples.
RESULTS: Overall, the magnitude of wealth-related inequalities in hypertension awareness, treatment, and control was observed to be higher in poorer than in richer countries. In poorer countries, levels of hypertension awareness and treatment tended to be higher among wealthier households; while a similar pro-rich distribution was observed for hypertension control in countries at all levels of economic development. In some countries, hypertension awareness was greater among the poor (Sweden, Argentina, Poland), as was treatment (Sweden, Poland) and control (Sweden).
CONCLUSION: Inequality in hypertension management outcomes decreased as countries became richer, but the considerable variation in patterns of wealth-related inequality - even among countries at similar levels of economic development - underscores the importance of health systems in improving hypertension management for all. These findings show that some, but not all, countries, including those with limited resources, have been able to achieve more equitable management of hypertension; and strategies must be tailored to national contexts to achieve optimal impact at population level.
METHODS: We assessed use of antiplatelet, cholesterol, and blood-pressure-lowering drugs in 8492 individuals with self-reported cardiovascular disease from 21 countries enrolled in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Defining one or more drugs as a minimal level of secondary prevention, wealth-related inequality was measured using the Wagstaff concentration index, scaled from -1 (pro-poor) to 1 (pro-rich), standardised by age and sex. Correlations between inequalities and national health-related indicators were estimated.
FINDINGS: The proportion of patients with cardiovascular disease on three medications ranged from 0% in South Africa (95% CI 0-1·7), Tanzania (0-3·6), and Zimbabwe (0-5·1), to 49·3% in Canada (44·4-54·3). Proportions receiving at least one drug varied from 2·0% (95% CI 0·5-6·9) in Tanzania to 91·4% (86·6-94·6) in Sweden. There was significant (p<0·05) pro-rich inequality in Saudi Arabia, China, Colombia, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe. Pro-poor distributions were observed in Sweden, Brazil, Chile, Poland, and the occupied Palestinian territory. The strongest predictors of inequality were public expenditure on health and overall use of secondary prevention medicines.
INTERPRETATION: Use of medication for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is alarmingly low. In many countries with the lowest use, pro-rich inequality is greatest. Policies associated with an equal or pro-poor distribution include free medications and community health programmes to support adherence to medications.
FUNDING: Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.
METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).
METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.
RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.
CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination.
CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.