Trial profile.

<p>Trial profile.</p

Range of primary and secondary outcomes.

†<p>Cholesterol level given as geometric mean (range) mmol/l.</p><p>Range of primary and secondary outcomes.</p

Baseline patient characteristics.

<p>Baseline patient characteristics.</p

Primary and secondary outcomes.

<p>For binary outcomes, summaries are presented as number (percent) and treatment effects as odds ratios (SOS vs Usual Care) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals estimated from logistic regression models, adjusted for matched pairs. For continuous outcomes (*), summaries are presented as geometric means and treatment effects are presented as ratios (SOS vs Usual Care) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals estimated from linear regression models of the logged values, adjusted for matched pairs.</p><p>Primary and secondary outcomes.</p

Primary and secondary outcomes in incident and prevalent patients.

<p>For binary outcomes, summaries are presented as number (percent) and treatment effects as odds ratios (SOS vs Usual Care) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals estimated from logistic regression models, adjusted for matched pairs. For continuous outcomes (*), summaries are presented as geometric means and treatment effects are presented as ratios (SOS vs Usual Care) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals estimated from linear regression models of the logged values, adjusted for matched pairs.</p><p>Primary and secondary outcomes in incident and prevalent patients.</p

Long term Simvastatin 40 mg prescribing in Intervention vs. Usual Care practices.

<p>Long term Simvastatin 40 mg prescribing in Intervention vs. Usual Care practices.</p

Prognostic importance of pretreatment and on-treatment blood pressure: Further analysis of the ACTION database and the effect of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system

<p>This retrospective further analysis of the ACTION database evaluated the relationships between baseline blood pressure (BP), on-treatment BP (after 6 weeks) and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes. Analyses were performed using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Statistically significant (p < 0.001) and consistent patterns were noted between the risk of major cardiovascular endpoints and both baseline SBP and on-treatment SBP. The lowest risk of debilitating stroke was apparent in those patients with baseline SBP < 120mmHg, with a hazard ratio in this lowest BP group of 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.28, 0.72), compared to the referent highest BP group (SBP < 150mmHg). Adjusting the model for treatment (nifedipine or placebo) did not modify the conclusions in any statistical or clinically meaningful way. Corresponding and similar results were obtained for pulse pressure but diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was not a consistently useful predictor of outcome. These data confirm the predictive importance of on-treatment SBP (but not DBP) and contribute to the debate about treatment-related BP targets. In this analysis, treatment with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease was not associated with any increase in cardiovascular risk, even with baseline SBP5120mmHg. </p

Absolute changes in confirmed stroke (cerebral infarction plus intracerebral haemorrhage) incidence referent to pre-legislation slope.

<p>CI confidence interval.</p>*<p>adjusted for sex, age, residence and deprivation quintile.</p

Time trends in stroke incidence (hospital admissions plus pre-hospital deaths).

<p>Footnote: graphs show lowess smoothed incidence rates with a bandwidth of 0.1.</p

Absolute changes in cerebral infarction incidence referent to pre-legislation slope.

<p>CI confidence interval.</p>*<p>adjusted for sex, age, residence and deprivation quintile.</p