Within-person variation in coronary risk factors: implications for the aetiology and prevention of coronary heart disease.

Epidemiological studies clearly demonstrate the importance of numerous risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD), including blood lipids, blood pressure, cigarette smoking and physical inactivity. These factors are widely believed to account for only around 50% of CHD cases. However, "within-person" variation in coronary risk factors can affect the size and even direction of estimated aetiological relationships, and though these effects have been explored for the univariate relations of blood pressure and blood cholesterol, much uncertainty remains. In this thesis, data from the British Regional Heart Study, a prospective study of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged British men, is used to investigate the extent and effects of "within-person variation" in a range of coronary risk factors. The effects on estimated relations with CHD are examined and the combined importance of the major risk factors to CHD risk assessed. The potential effectiveness of different CHD prevention strategies, and the size and cause of social inequalities in CHD are also estimated. The findings reveal a high degree of within-person variation in both established and novel coronary risk factors. Taking within-person variation into account, CHD risk-relations for blood lipids, blood pressure, cigarette smoking and physical inactivity increase in magnitude though the estimated protective effect from moderate alcohol intake is reduced. After correction for within-person variation, blood cholesterol, blood pressure and cigarette smoking together account for at least 75 80% of CHD cases in British men. Moderate population-wide improvements in these risk factors could there fore greatly reduce population levels of CHD, while "high-risk" strategies, unless applied to a large proportion of the population, are likely to have only a limited effect. Narrow ing social inequalities in CHD would also have a comparatively modest effect on CHD compared with population-wide control of the key causal coronary risk factors

Effects of gastroprotectant drugs for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its complications: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background: Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. Background: Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class. Findings: We identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0–210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9–2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25–0·29; p<0·0001), symptomatic ulcers (0·25, 0·22–0·29; p<0·0001), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0·40, 0·32–0·50; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (0·85, 0·69–1·04; p=0·11). Larger proportional reductions in upper gastrointestinal bleeding were observed for PPIs than for other gastroprotectant drugs (PPIs 0·21, 99% CI 0·12–0·36; prostaglandin analogues 0·63, 0·35–1·12; H2RAs 0·49, 0·30–0·80; phet=0·0005). Gastroprotectant drugs were effective in preventing bleeding irrespective of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (phet=0·56). In healing trials, gastroprotectants increased endoscopic ulcer healing (3·49, 95% CI 3·28–3·72; p<0·0001), with PPIs more effective (5·22, 99% CI 4·00–6·80) than prostaglandin analogues (2·27, 1·91–2·70) and H2RAs (3·80, 3·44–4·20; phet<0·0001). In trials among patients with acute bleeding, gastroprotectants reduced further bleeding (OR 0·68, 95% CI 0·60–0·78; p<0·0001), blood transfusion (0·75, 0·65–0·88; p=0·0003), further endoscopic intervention (0·56, 0·45–0·70; p<0·0001), and surgery (0·72, 0·61–0·84; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (OR 0·90, 0·72–1·11; p=0·31). PPIs had larger protective effects than did H2RAs for further bleeding (phet=0·0107) and blood transfusion (phet=0·0130). Interpretation: Gastroprotectants, in particular PPIs, reduce the risk of peptic ulcer disease and its complications and promote healing of peptic ulcers in a wide range of clinical circumstances. However, this meta-analysis might have overestimated the benefits owing to small study bias

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Lack of Effect of Lowering LDL Cholesterol on Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Individual Data from 175,000 People in 27 Randomised Trials of Statin Therapy

Pathophysiology, epidemiology and therapy of agein

Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18 686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis

<p>Background: Although statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in people with diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty about the effects on particular outcomes and whether such effects depend on the type of diabetes, lipid profile, or other factors. We undertook a prospective meta-analysis to help resolve these uncertainties.</p> <p>Methods: We analysed data from 18 686 individuals with diabetes (1466 with type 1 and 17 220 with type 2) in the context of a further 71 370 without diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statin therapy. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on clinical outcomes per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.</p> <p>Findings: During a mean follow-up of 4·3 years, there were 3247 major vascular events in people with diabetes. There was a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in participants with diabetes (rate ratio [RR] 0·91, 99% CI 0·82—1·01; p=0·02), which was similar to the 13% reduction in those without diabetes (0·87, 0·82—0·92; p<0·0001). This finding reflected a significant reduction in vascular mortality (0·87, 0·76—1·00; p=0·008) and no effect on non-vascular mortality (0·97, 0·82—1·16; p=0·7) in participants with diabetes. There was a significant 21% proportional reduction in major vascular events per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people with diabetes (0·79, 0·72—0·86; p<0·0001), which was similar to the effect observed in those without diabetes (0·79, 0·76—0·82; p<0·0001). In diabetic participants there were reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0·78, 0·69—0·87; p<0·0001), coronary revascularisation (0·75, 0·64—0·88; p<0·0001), and stroke (0·79, 0·67—0·93; p=0·0002). Among people with diabetes the proportional effects of statin therapy were similar irrespective of whether there was a prior history of vascular disease and irrespective of other baseline characteristics. After 5 years, 42 (95% CI 30—55) fewer people with diabetes had major vascular events per 1000 allocated statin therapy.</p> <p>Interpretation: Statin therapy should be considered for all diabetic individuals who are at sufficiently high risk of vascular events.</p&gt

The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials

<p>Background: Statins reduce LDL cholesterol and prevent vascular events, but their net effects in people at low risk of vascular events remain uncertain.</p> <p>Methods: This meta-analysis included individual participant data from 22 trials of statin versus control (n=134 537; mean LDL cholesterol difference 1·08 mmol/L; median follow-up 4·8 years) and five trials of more versus less statin (n=39 612; difference 0·51 mmol/L; 5·1 years). Major vascular events were major coronary events (ie, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death), strokes, or coronary revascularisations. Participants were separated into five categories of baseline 5-year major vascular event risk on control therapy (no statin or low-intensity statin) (<5%, ≥5% to <10%, ≥10% to <20%,≥20% to <30%, ≥30%); in each, the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction was estimated.</p> <p>Findings: Reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin reduced the risk of major vascular events (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77—0·81, per 1·0 mmol/L reduction), largely irrespective of age, sex, baseline LDL cholesterol or previous vascular disease, and of vascular and all-cause mortality. The proportional reduction in major vascular events was at least as big in the two lowest risk categories as in the higher risk categories (RR per 1·0 mmol/L reduction from lowest to highest risk: 0·62 [99% CI 0·47—0·81], 0·69 [99% CI 0·60—0·79], 0·79 [99% CI 0·74—0·85], 0·81 [99% CI 0·77—0·86], and 0·79 [99% CI 0·74—0·84]; trend p=0·04), which reflected significant reductions in these two lowest risk categories in major coronary events (RR 0·57, 99% CI 0·36—0·89, p=0·0012, and 0·61, 99% CI 0·50—0·74, p<0·0001) and in coronary revascularisations (RR 0·52, 99% CI 0·35—0·75, and 0·63, 99% CI 0·51—0·79; both p<0·0001). For stroke, the reduction in risk in participants with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10% (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·76, 99% CI 0·61—0·95, p=0·0012) was also similar to that seen in higher risk categories (trend p=0·3). In participants without a history of vascular disease, statins reduced the risks of vascular (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·85, 95% CI 0·77—0·95) and all-cause mortality (RR 0·91, 95% CI 0·85—0·97), and the proportional reductions were similar by baseline risk. There was no evidence that reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin increased cancer incidence (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 1·00, 95% CI 0·96—1·04), cancer mortality (RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·93—1·06), or other non-vascular mortality.</p> <p>Interpretation: In individuals with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%, each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol produced an absolute reduction in major vascular events of about 11 per 1000 over 5 years. This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered.</p&gt