Depression and mortality: Artifact of measurement and analysis?

Background Previous research demonstrates various associations between depression, cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality, possibly as a result of the different methodologies used to measure depression and analyse relationships. This analysis investigated the association between depression, CVD incidence (CVDI) and mortality from CVD (MCVD), smoking related conditions (MSRC), and all causes (MALL), in a sample data set, where depression was measured using items from a validated questionnaire and using items derived from the factor analysis of a larger questionnaire, and analyses were conducted based on continuous data and grouped data. Methods Data from the PRIME Study (N=9798 men) on depression and 10-year CVD incidence and mortality were analysed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results Using continuous data, both measures of depression resulted in the emergence of positive associations between depression and mortality (MCVD, MSRC, MALL). Using grouped data, however, associations between a validated measure of depression and MCVD, and between a measure of depression derived from factor analysis and all measures of mortality were lost. Limitations Low levels of depression, low numbers of individuals with high depression and low numbers of outcome events may limit these analyses, but levels are usual for the population studied. Conclusions These data demonstrate a possible association between depression and mortality but detecting this association is dependent on the measurement used and method of analysis. Different findings based on methodology present clear problems for the elucidation and determination of relationships. The differences here argue for the use of validated scales where possible and suggest against over-reduction via factor analysis and grouping. CrownCopyright © 2013PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved

Treatment gaps in the implementation of LDL cholesterol control among high- and very high-risk patients in Europe between 2020–2021: the multinational observational SANTORINI study

Background European data pre-2019 suggest statin monotherapy is the most common approach to lipid management for preventing cardiovascular (CV) events, resulting in only one-fifth of high- and very high-risk patients achieving the 2019 ESC/EAS recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Whether the treatment landscape has evolved, or gaps persist remains of interest. Methods Baseline data are presented from SANTORINI, an observational, prospective study that documents the use of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in patients ≥18 years at high or very high CV risk between 2020 and 2021 across primary and secondary care settings in 14 European countries. Findings Of 9602 enrolled patients, 9044 with complete data were included (mean age: 65.3 ± 10.9 years; 72.6% male). Physicians reported using 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines as a basis for CV risk classification in 52.0% (4706/9044) of patients (overall: high risk 29.2%; very high risk 70.8%). However, centrally re-assessed CV risk based on 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines suggested 6.5% (308/4706) and 91.0% (4284/4706) were high- and very high-risk patients, respectively. Overall, 21.8% of patients had no documented LLTs, 54.2% were receiving monotherapy and 24.0% combination LLT. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) LDL-C was 2.1 (1.6, 3.0) mmol/L (82 [60, 117] mg/dL), with 20.1% of patients achieving risk-based LDL-C goals as per the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. Interpretation At the time of study enrolment, 80% of high- and very high-risk patients failed to achieve 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines LDL-C goals. Contributory factors may include CV risk underestimation and underutilization of combination therapies. Further efforts are needed to achieve current guideline-recommended LDL-C goals. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04271280. Funding This study is funded by Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Munich, Germany

Systemic chemokine levels, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke events: The PRIME Study

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the association between systemic levels of the chemokine regulated on activation normal T-cell expressed and secreted (RANTES/CCL5), interferon-γ-inducible protein-10 (IP-10/CXCL10), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL2), and eotaxin-1 (CCL11) with future coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke events and to assess their usefulness for CHD and ischemic stroke risk prediction in the PRIME Study. METHODS: After 10 years of follow-up of 9,771 men, 2 nested case-control studies were built including 621 first CHD events and 1,242 matched controls and 95 first ischemic stroke events and 190 matched controls. Standardized hazard ratios (HRs) for each log-transformed chemokine were estimated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: None of the 4 chemokines were independent predictors of CHD, either with respect to stable angina or to acute coronary syndrome. Conversely, RANTES (HR = 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–2.74), IP-10 (HR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.06–2.20), and eotaxin-1 (HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.02–2.46), but not MCP-1 (HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.68–1.46), were associated with ischemic stroke independently of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, hs-CRP, and fibrinogen. When the first 3 chemokines were included in the same multivariate model, RANTES and IP-10 remained predictive of ischemic stroke. Their addition to a traditional risk factor model predicting ischemic stroke substantially improved the C-statistic from 0.6756 to 0.7425 (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic men, higher systemic levels of RANTES and IP-10 are independent predictors of ischemic stroke but not of CHD events. RANTES and IP-10 may improve the accuracy of ischemic stroke risk prediction over traditional risk factors