Cardiovascular Diseases in India Compared With the United States

This review describes trends in the burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and risk factors in India compared with the United States; provides potential explanations for these differences; and describes strategies to improve cardiovascular health behaviors, systems, and policies in India. The prevalence of CVD in India has risen over the past 2 decades due to population growth, aging, and a stable age-adjusted CVD mortality rate. Over the same time period, the United States has experienced an overall decline in age-adjusted CVD mortality, although the trend has begun to plateau. These improvements in CVD mortality in the United States are largely due to favorable population-level risk factor trends, specifically with regard to tobacco use, cholesterol, and blood pressure, although improvements in secondary prevention and acute care have also contributed. To realize similar gains in reducing premature death and disability from CVD, India needs to implement population-level policies while strengthening and integrating its local, regional, and national health systems. Achieving universal health coverage that includes financial risk protection should remain a goal to help all Indians realize their right to health

Patients' satisfaction with information at discharge

Background: Adequate patient knowledge and engagement with their condition and its management can reduce re-hospitalisations and improve outcomes after acute admission for circulatory system disease. Aim: To evaluate the perceptions of cardio- or cerebrovascular patients of their satisfaction with discharge processes and to determine if this differs by demographic groups. Methods: A sample of 536 eligible public hospital inpatients was extracted from a consumer experience surveillance system. Questions relating to the discharge process were analysed using descriptive statistics to compare patient satisfaction levels against demographic variables. Results: Dissatisfaction rates were highest within the ‘Written information provided’ (37.8%) and ‘Danger signals communicated’ (34.7%) categories. Women and people aged ≥80 were more likely to express dissatisfaction. Conclusion: Although respondents were largely satisfied, there are important differences in the characteristics of those that were dissatisfied. The communication of important discharge information to older people and women was less likely to meet their perceived needs

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)

Within-trial evaluation of medical resources, costs, and quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes participating in the exenatide study of cardiovascular event lowering (EXSCEL)

OBJECTIVE To compare medical resource use, costs, and health utilities for 14,752 patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to once-weekly exenatide (EQW) or placebo in addition to usual diabetes care in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Medical resource use data and responses to the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument were collected at baseline and throughout the trial. Medical resources and medications were assigned values by using U.S. Medicare payments and wholesale acquisition costs, respectively. Secondary analyses used English costs. RESULTS Patients were followed for an average of 3.3 years, during which time those randomized to EQW experienced 0.41 fewer inpatient days (7.05 vs. 7.46 days; relative rate ratio 0.91; P = 0.05). Rates of outpatient medical visits were similar, as were total inpatient and outpatient costs. Mean costs for nonstudy diabetes medications over the study period were ∼USD 1,600 lower with EQW than with placebo (P = 0.01). Total within-study costs, excluding study medication, were lower in the EQW arm than in the placebo arm (USD 28,907 vs. USD 30,914; P ≤ 0.01). When including the estimated cost of EQW, total mean costs were significantly higher in the EQW group than in the placebo group (USD 42,697 vs. USD 30,914; P &lt; 0.01). With English costs applied, mean total costs, including exenatide costs, were £1,670 higher in the EQW group than the placebo group (£10,874 vs. £9,204; P &lt; 0.01). There were no significant differences in EQ-5D health utilities between arms over time. CONCLUSIONS Medical costs were lower in the EQW arm than the placebo arm, but total costs were significantly higher once the cost of branded exenatide was incorporated.</p

Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

Background EXSCEL is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining the effect of exenatide once-weekly (EQW) versus placebo on time to the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) risk Methods Patients were enrolled at 688 sites in 35 countries. We describe their baseline characteristics according to prior CV event status and compare patients with those enrolled in prior glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) outcomes trials. Results A total of 14,752 participants randomized between June 2010 and September 2015, 6,788 (46.0%) patients were enrolled in Europe, 3,708 (25.1%) North America, 2,727 (18.5%) Latin America, and 1,529 (10.4%) Asia Pacific. Overall, 73% had at least one prior CV event (70% coronary artery disease, 24% peripheral arterial disease, 22% cerebrovascular disease). The median (IQR) age was 63 years (56, 69), 38% were female and 16% had a prior history of heart failure. Those without a prior CV event were younger with a shorter duration of diabetes and better renal function than those with at least one prior CV event. Compared with prior GLP-1RA trials, EXSCEL has a larger percentage of patients without a prior CV event and a notable percentage who were taking a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor at baseline (15%). Conclusions EXSCEL is one of the largest global GLP-1RA trials, evaluating the safety and efficacy of EQW with a broad patient population that may extend generalizability compared to prior GLP-1RA trials</p

Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

Background EXSCEL is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining the effect of exenatide once-weekly (EQW) versus placebo on time to the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) risk Methods Patients were enrolled at 688 sites in 35 countries. We describe their baseline characteristics according to prior CV event status and compare patients with those enrolled in prior glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) outcomes trials. Results A total of 14,752 participants randomized between June 2010 and September 2015, 6,788 (46.0%) patients were enrolled in Europe, 3,708 (25.1%) North America, 2,727 (18.5%) Latin America, and 1,529 (10.4%) Asia Pacific. Overall, 73% had at least one prior CV event (70% coronary artery disease, 24% peripheral arterial disease, 22% cerebrovascular disease). The median (IQR) age was 63 years (56, 69), 38% were female and 16% had a prior history of heart failure. Those without a prior CV event were younger with a shorter duration of diabetes and better renal function than those with at least one prior CV event. Compared with prior GLP-1RA trials, EXSCEL has a larger percentage of patients without a prior CV event and a notable percentage who were taking a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor at baseline (15%). Conclusions EXSCEL is one of the largest global GLP-1RA trials, evaluating the safety and efficacy of EQW with a broad patient population that may extend generalizability compared to prior GLP-1RA trials</p

Cardiovascular outcomes with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

Background Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective glucose-lowering drugs. Findings from cardiovascular outcome trials showed cardiovascular safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists, but results for cardiovascular efficacy were varied. We aimed to examine overall cardiovascular efficacy for lixisenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide, and extended-release exenatide. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analysed data from eligible trials that assessed the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in adult patients (aged 18 years or older) with type 2 diabetes and had a primary outcome including, but not limited to, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke. We searched PubMed and MEDLINE without language restrictions up to Sept 18, 2017, for eligible trials. We did a meta-analysis of available trial data using a random-effects model to calculate overall hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular efficacy outcomes and odds ratios for key safety outcomes. Findings Of 12 articles identified in our search and screened for eligibility, four trials of cardiovascular outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonists were identified: ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN 6 (semaglutide), and EXSCEL (extended-release exenatide). Compared with placebo, GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment showed a significant 10% relative risk reduction in the three-point major adverse cardiovascular event primary outcome (cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke; HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·82–0·99; p=0·033), a 13% RRR in cardiovascular mortality (0·87, 0·79–0·96; p=0·007), and a 12% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality (0·88, 0·81–0·95; p=0·002), with low-to-moderate between-trial statistical heterogeneity. No significant effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists was identified on fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, hospital admission for unstable angina, or hospital admission for heart failure. Overall, no significant differences were seen in severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or medullary thyroid cancer reported between GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment and placebo. Interpretation Our findings show cardiovascular safety across all GLP-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials and suggest that drugs in this class can reduce three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality risk, albeit to varying degrees for individual drugs, without significant safety concerns. GLP-1 receptor agonists have a favourable risk–benefit balance overall, which should allow the choice of drug to be individualised to each patient's needs

Effect of once-weekly exenatide on clinical outcomes according to baseline risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Insights from the EXSCEL trial

Background In the EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering), exenatide once-weekly resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACEs ) and a nominal 14% reduction in all-cause mortality in 14 752 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2 DM ) with and without cardiovascular disease. Whether patients at increased risk for events experienced a comparatively greater treatment benefit with exenatide is unknown. Methods and Results In the EXSCEL population, we created risk scores for MACEs and all-cause mortality using step-wise selection of baseline characteristics. A risk score was calculated for each patient, and a time-to-event model for each end point was developed including the risk score, treatment assignment, and risk-treatment interaction. Interaction P values evaluating for a differential treatment effect by baseline risk were reported. Over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2, 4.4), 1091 (7.4%) patients died and 1744 (11.8%) experienced a MACE . Independent predictors of MACEs and all-cause mortality included age, sex, comorbidities (eg, previous cardiovascular event), body mass index, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The all-cause mortality and MACE risk models had modest discrimination with optimism-corrected c-indices of 0.73 and 0.71, respectively. No interaction was observed between treatment effect and risk profile for either end point (both interactions, P>0.1). Conclusions Baseline characteristics (eg, age, previous cardiovascular events) and routine laboratory values (eg, hemoglobin A1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate) provided modest prognostic value for mortality and MACEs in a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exenatide's effects on mortality and MACEs were consistent across the spectrum of baseline risk. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01144338