Trends in hyperlipidemia and hypertension management in type 2 diabetes patients from 1998–2004: a longitudinal observational study

BACKGROUND: Lack of treatment initiation or intensification might explain why some patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach target goals. The objective is to assess trends in risk factor treatment, and identify determinants for medication adjustments in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from the Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrated Available Care (ZODIAC)-study in The Netherlands. Management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia was assessed yearly from 1998-2004 by measuring the percentage of patients receiving a treatment initiation or intensification among all patients with elevated risk factor levels. Generalized estimating equation analyses were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, the percentage of patients with an elevated total cholesterol/high-density lipoproteins ratio (>6) decreased considerably (from 29% to 4%) whereas the percentage of hypertensive patients decreased only slightly (>or= 150/85 mmHg; from 58% to 51%). Initiation of lipid-lowering therapy and intensification of antihypertensive therapy was higher in more recent years. However, still two-third of patients with insufficiently controlled blood pressure in 2003 did not receive an initiation or intensification of antihypertensive treatment in the following year. Treatment changes were mainly determined by elevated levels of the corresponding risk factor. We did not observe increased initiation rates for lipid-lowering therapy in patients with both hypertension and hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSION: Hypertension and hyperlipidemia management in type 2 diabetes patients has improved in the past decade but further improvement is possible. Greater effort is needed to stimulate medication adjustments in patients with insufficiently controlled hypertension and combined risk factors

Early time course of major bleeding on antiplatelet therapy after TIA or ischemic stroke

Objective: To study the early time course of major bleeding and its subtypes in patients with cerebral ischemia on dual and single antiplatelet therapy. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on individual patient data from 6 randomized clinical trials (Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events [CAPRIE], Second European Stroke Prevention Study [ESPS-2], Management of Atherothrombosis With Clopidogrel in High Risk Patients [MATCH], Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance [CHARISMA], European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial [ESPRIT], and Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes [PRoFESS]) including 45,195 patients with a TIA or noncardioembolic ischemic stroke. We studied incidence rates of bleeding per antiplatelet regimen stratified by time from randomization (≤30, 31–90, 91–180, 181–365, >365 days). We calculated incidence rates per trial and pooled estimates with random-effects meta-analysis. We performed Poisson regression to assess differences between time periods with adjustment for age and sex. Results: The incidence of major bleeding on aspirin plus clopidogrel and aspirin plus -dipyridamole was highest in the first 30 days, 5.8 and 4.9 per 100 person-years, respectively, and was significantly higher than at 31 to 90 days (rate ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.16–3.40 for aspirin plus clopidogrel; rate ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.24–3.03 for aspirin plus dipyridamole). Incidence rates on aspirin and clopidogrel monotherapy were 2.8 and 2.5 per 100 person-years, respectively, in the first 30 days, with no significant change over time. The time course was similar for gastrointestinal bleeds. There was no early excess of intracranial hemorrhage in patients on either dual or single antiplatelet therapy. Conclusion: Dual antiplatelet therapy is associated with high early risks of major and gastrointestinal bleeding that decline after the first month in trial cohorts

Radiosurgical, neurosurgical, or no intervention for cerebral cavernous malformations: A decision analysis

Introduction We aimed to evaluate the preferred treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic cerebral cavernous malformations (CCM). Methods In a decision model, we compared neurosurgical, radiosurgical, and conservative management. A literature review yielded the risks and outcomes of interventions, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and seizures. Patients with CCM rated their quality of life to determine utilities. We estimated the expected number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the ICH recurrence risk over five years, according to mode of presentation and CCM location (brainstem vs. other). We performed analyses with a time horizon of five years. Results Using the best available data, the expected number of QALYs for brainstem CCM presenting with ICH or focal neurological deficit was 2.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.54-3.08) for conservative, 3.01 (95% CI: 2.86-3.16) for neurosurgical, and 3.03 (95% CI: 2.88-3.18) for radiosurgical intervention; those for non-brainstem CCM presenting with ICH or focal neurological deficit were 3.08 (95% CI: 2.85-3.31) for conservative, 3.21 (95% CI: 3.01-3.36) for neurosurgical, and 3.19 (95% CI: 2.98-3.37) for radiosurgical intervention. For CCM presenting with epilepsy, QALYs were 3.09 (95% CI: 3.03-3.16) for conservative, 3.33 (95% CI: 3.31-3.34) for neurosurgical, and 3.27 (95% CI: 3.24-3.30) for radiosurgical intervention. Discussion and conclusion For the initial five years after presentation, our study provides Class III evidence that for CCM presenting with ICH or focal neurological deficit conservative management is the first option, and for CCM presenting with epilepsy CCM intervention should be considered. More comparative studies with long-term follow-up are needed

Balancing Benefits and Risks of Long-Term Antiplatelet Therapy in Noncardioembolic Transient Ischemic Attack or Stroke

Lifelong treatment with antiplatelet drugs is recommended following a transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke. Bleeding complications may offset the benefit of antiplatelet drugs in patients at increased risk of bleeding and low risk of recurrent ischemic events. We aimed to investigate the net benefit of antiplatelet treatment according to an individuals’ bleeding risk. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from 6 randomized clinical trials (CAPRIE [Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events], ESPS-2 [European Stroke Prevention Study-2], MATCH [Management of Atherothrombosis With Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients], CHARISMA [Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance], ESPRIT [European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischemia Trial], and PRoFESS [Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes]) investigating antiplatelet therapy in the subacute or chronic phase after noncardioembolic transient ischemic attack or stroke. Patients were stratified into quintiles according to their predicted risk of major bleeding with the S(2)TOP-BLEED score. The annual risk of major bleeding and recurrent ischemic events was assessed per quintile for 4 scenarios: (1) aspirin monotherapy, (2) aspirin-clopidogrel versus aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy, (3) aspirin-dipyridamole versus clopidogrel, and (4) aspirin versus clopidogrel. Net benefit was calculated for the second, third, and fourth scenario. RESULTS: Thirty seven thousand eighty-seven patients were included in the analyses. Both risk of major bleeding and recurrent ischemic events increased over quintiles of predicted bleeding risk, but risk of ischemic events was consistently higher (eg, from 0.7%/y (bottom quintile) to 3.2%/y (top quintile) for major bleeding on aspirin and from 2.5%/y to 10.2%/y for risk of ischemic events on aspirin). Treatment with aspirin-clopidogrel led to more major bleedings (0.9%–1.7% per year), than reduction in ischemic events (ranging from 0.4% to 0.9/1.0% per year) across all quintiles. There was no clear preference for either aspirin-dipyridamole or clopidogrel according to baseline bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke included in clinical trials of antiplatelet therapy, the risk of recurrent ischemic events and of major bleeding increase in parallel. Antiplatelet treatment cannot be individualized solely based on bleeding risk assessment

Prediction Models for Clinical Outcome After a Carotid Revascularization Procedure.

Background and Purpose- Prediction models may help physicians to stratify patients with high and low risk for periprocedural complications or long-term stroke risk after carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate external performance of previously published prediction models for short- and long-term outcome after carotid revascularization in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods- From a literature review, we selected all prediction models that used only readily available patient characteristics known before procedure initiation. Follow-up data from 2184 carotid artery stenting and 2261 carotid endarterectomy patients from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]) were used to validate 23 short-term outcome models to estimate stroke or death risk ≤30 days after the procedure and the original outcome measure for which the model was developed. Additionally, we validated 7 long-term outcome models for the original outcome measure. Predictive performance of the models was assessed with C statistics and calibration plots. Results- Stroke or death ≤30 days after the procedure occurred in 158 (7.2%) patients after carotid artery stenting and in 84 (3.7%) patients after carotid endarterectomy. Most models for short-term outcome after carotid artery stenting (n=4) or carotid endarterectomy (n=19) had poor discriminative performance (C statistics ranging from 0.49-0.64) and poor calibration with small absolute risk differences between the lowest and highest risk groups and overestimation of risk in the highest risk groups. Long-term outcome models (n=7) had a slightly better performance with C statistics ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 and reasonable calibration. Conclusions- Current models did not reliably predict outcome after carotid revascularization in a trial population of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In particular, prediction of short-term outcome seemed to be difficult. Further external validation of existing prediction models or development of new prediction models is needed before such models can be used to support treatment decisions in individual patients

Difference in Rupture Risk Between Familial and Sporadic Intracranial Aneurysms An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We combined individual patient data (IPD) from prospective cohorts of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) to assess to what extent patients with familial UIA have a higher rupture risk than those with sporadic UIA. METHODS: For this IPD meta-analysis we performed an Embase and Pubmed search for studies published up to December 1, 2020. We included studies that 1) had a prospective study design; 2) included 50 or more patients with UIA; 3) studied the natural course of UIA and risk factors for aneurysm rupture including family history for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and UIA; and 4) had aneurysm rupture as an outcome. Cohorts with available IPD were included. All studies included patients with newly diagnosed UIA visiting one of the study centers. The primary outcome was aneurysmal rupture. Patients with polycystic kidney disease and moyamoya disease were excluded. We compared rupture rates of familial versus sporadic UIA using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for the PHASES score and smoking. We performed two analyses: 1. only studies defining first-degree relatives as parents, children, and siblings and 2. all studies, including those in which first-degree relatives are defined as only parents and children, but not siblings. RESULTS: We pooled IPD from eight cohorts with a low and moderate risk of bias. First-degree relatives were defined as parents, siblings and children in six cohorts (29% Dutch, 55% Finnish, 15% Japanese), totalling 2,297 patients (17% familial, 399 patients) with 3,089 UIA and 7,301 person-years follow-up. Rupture occurred in 10 familial patients (rupture rate: 0·89%/person-year; 95% CI:0·45-1·59) and 41 sporadic patients (0·66%/person-year; 95% CI:0·48-0·89); adjusted HR for familial patients 2·56 (95% CI: 1·18-5·56). After adding also the two cohorts excluding siblings as first-degree relatives resulting in 9,511 patients the adjusted HR was 1·44 (95% CI: 0·86-2·40). CONCLUSION: The risk of rupture of UIA is two and a half times higher, with a range from a 1.2 to 5 times higher risk, in familial than in sporadic UIA. When assessing the risk of rupture in UIA, family history should be taken into account

Sex Difference and Rupture Rate of Intracranial Aneurysms : An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose: In previous studies, women had a higher risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms than men, but female sex was not an independent risk factor. This may be explained by a higher prevalence of patient- or aneurysm-related risk factors for rupture in women than in men or by insufficient power of previous studies. We assessed sex differences in rupture rate taking into account other patient- and aneurysm-related risk factors for aneurysmal rupture. Methods: We searched Embase and Pubmed for articles published until December 1, 2020. Cohorts with available individual patient data were included in our meta-analysis. We compared rupture rates of women versus men using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for the PHASES score (Population, Hypertension, Age, Size of Aneurysm, Earlier Subarachnoid Hemorrhage From Another Aneurysm, Site of Aneurysm), smoking, and a positive family history of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Results: We pooled individual patient data from 9 cohorts totaling 9940 patients (6555 women, 66%) with 12 193 unruptured intracranial aneurysms, and 24 357 person-years follow-up. Rupture occurred in 163 women (rupture rate 1.04%/person-years [95% CI, 0.89-1.21]) and 63 men (rupture rate 0.74%/person-years [95% CI, 0.58-0.94]). Women were older (61.9 versus 59.5 years), were less often smokers (20% versus 44%), more often had internal carotid artery aneurysms (24% versus 17%), and larger sized aneurysms (>= 7 mm, 24% versus 23%) than men. The unadjusted women-to-men hazard ratio was 1.43 (95% CI, 1.07-1.93) and the adjusted women/men ratio was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.02-1.90). Conclusions: Women have a higher risk of aneurysmal rupture than men and this sex difference is not explained by differences in patient- and aneurysm-related risk factors for aneurysmal rupture. Future studies should focus on the factors explaining the higher risk of aneurysmal rupture in women.Peer reviewe

Long-term outcomes of stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: The risk of periprocedural stroke or death is higher after carotid artery stenting (CAS) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, long-term outcomes have not been sufficiently assessed. We sought to combine individual patient-level data from the four major randomised controlled trials of CAS versus CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis to assess long-term outcomes. METHODS: We did a pooled analysis of individual patient-level data, acquired from the four largest randomised controlled trials assessing the relative efficacy of CAS and CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy trial, International Carotid Stenting Study, and Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial). The risk of ipsilateral stroke was assessed between 121 days and 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was the composite risk of stroke or death within 120 days after randomisation (periprocedural risk) or subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years after randomisation (postprocedural risk). Analyses were intention-to-treat, with the risk of events calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards analysis with adjustment for trial. FINDINGS: In the four trials included, 4775 patients were randomly assigned, of whom a total of 4754 (99·6%) patients were followed up for a maximum of 12·4 years. 21 (0·4%) patients immediately withdrew consent after randomisation and were excluded. Median length of follow-up across the studies ranged from 2·0 to 6·9 years. 129 periprocedural and 55 postprocedural outcome events occurred in patients allocated CEA, and 206 and 57 for those allocated CAS. After the periprocedural period, the annual rates of ipsilateral stroke per person-year were similar for the two treatments: 0·60% (95% CI 0·46-0·79) for CEA and 0·64% (0·49-0·83) for CAS. Nonetheless, the periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined favoured CEA, with treatment differences at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 years all ranging between 2·8% (1·1-4·4) and 4·1% (2·0-6·3). INTERPRETATION: Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA were similar, suggesting robust clinical durability for both treatments. Although long-term outcomes (periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined) continue to favour CEA, the similarity of the postprocedural rates suggest that improvements in the periprocedural safety of CAS could provide similar outcomes of the two procedures in the future. FUNDING: None