Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality events in diabetes:Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS: To evaluate the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality events in people with diabetes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials of aspirin compared with placebo (or no treatment) in people with diabetes with no history of cardiovascular disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and a manual search of bibliographies to November 2015. Study-specific relative risks with 95% CIs were aggregated using random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized trials were included in the review. There was a significant reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events: relative risk of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-0.99) in groups taking aspirin compared with placebo or no treatment. Limited subgroup analyses suggested that the effect of aspirin on major adverse cardiovascular events differed by baseline cardiovascular disease risk, medication compliance and sex (P for interaction for all > 0.05).There was no significant reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Aspirin significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction for a treatment duration of ≤ 5 years. There were differences in the effect of aspirin by dosage and treatment duration on overall stroke outcomes (P for interaction for all < 0.05). There was an increase in risk of major or gastrointestinal bleeding events, but estimates were imprecise and not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The emerging data do not clearly support guidelines that encourage the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes who are at increased cardiovascular disease risk

Educational weight loss interventions in obese and overweight adults with type 2 diabetes : a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aim The worldwide prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing, with most individuals with the disease being overweight or obese. Weight loss can reduce disease‐related morbidity and mortality and weight losses of 10–15 kg have been shown to reverse type 2 diabetes. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of community‐based educational interventions for weight loss in type 2 diabetes. Methods This is a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in obese or overweight adults, aged 18–75 years, with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Primary outcomes were weight and/or BMI. CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to June 2019. Trials were classified into specified a priori comparisons according to intervention type. A pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) (from baseline to follow‐up) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) between trial groups (difference‐in‐difference) were estimated through random‐effects meta‐analyses using the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2 and publication bias was explored visually using funnel plots. Results Some 7383 records were screened; 228 full‐text articles were assessed and 49 RCTs (n = 12 461 participants) were included in this review, with 44 being suitable for inclusion into the meta‐analysis. Pooled estimates of education combined with low‐calorie, low‐carbohydrate meal replacements (SMD = –2.48, 95% CI –3.59, –1.49, I2 = 98%) or diets (SMD = –1.25, 95% CI –2.11, –0.39, I2 = 95%) or low‐fat meal replacements (SMD = –1.15, 95%CI –2.05, –1.09, I2 = 85%) appeared most effective. Conclusion Low‐calorie, low‐carbohydrate meal replacements or diets combined with education appear the most promising interventions to achieve the largest weight and BMI reductions in people with type 2 diabetes

Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control.

To conduct a service evaluation of usability and utility on-line clinical audit tools developed as part of a UK Classification of Diabetes project to improve the categorisation and ultimately management of diabetes

Estimating the economic burden of cardiovascular events in patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the costs to the UK National Health Service of cardiovascular (CV) events among individuals receiving lipid-modifying therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records from 2006 to 2012 to identify individuals with their first and second CV-related hospitalisations (first event and second event cohorts). Within-person differences were used to estimate CV-related outcomes. SETTING: Patients in the UK who had their first CV event between January 2006 and March 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years who had a CV event and received at least 2 lipid-modifying therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs (2014 £) were estimated in 3 periods: baseline (pre-event), acute (6 months afterwards) and long-term (subsequent 30 months). Primary outcomes included incremental costs, resource usage and total costs per period. RESULTS: There were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. The mean incremental acute CV event costs for the first event and second event cohorts were: coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (CABG/PTCA) £5635 and £5823, myocardial infarction £4275 and £4301, ischaemic stroke £3512 and £4572, heart failure £2444 and £3461, unstable angina £2179 and £2489 and transient ischaemic attack £1537 and £1814. The mean incremental long-term costs were: heart failure £848 and £2829, myocardial infarction £922 and £1385, ischaemic stroke £973 and £682, transient ischaemic attack £705 and £1692, unstable angina £328 and £677, and CABG/PTCA £-368 and £599. Hospitalisation accounted for 95% of acute and 61% of long-term incremental costs. Higher comorbidity was associated with higher long-term costs. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularisation and myocardial infarction were associated with the highest incremental costs following a CV event. On the basis of real-world data, the economic burden of CV events in the UK is substantial, particularly among those with greater comorbidity burden

The need for improved collection and coding of ethnicity in health research

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has exposed the need for improved collection and coding of ethnicity, despite years of debate on the issue.1,2 A review found only 7% of Covid-19 research papers and surveillance reports presented ethnicity-disaggregated data.3 Complete, detailed and accurate ethnicity data are required for clinicians, researchers and policy makers to further examine outcomes and their causes, and manage healthcare needs related to Covid-19 in ethnic minority populations

Benefits and harms of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I) and renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I) versus SGLT2-Is alone in patients with type 2 diabetes:A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION: It is uncertain if the combination of sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2‐Is) and renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS‐Is) provides better cardio‐renal clinical outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared with SGLT2‐Is alone. Using a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we evaluated the efficacy and safety with respect to cardio‐renal outcomes of the combination of SGLT2 and RAAS inhibitors vs SGLT2‐Is in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and search of bibliographies to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each study. Study‐specific risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Nine articles comprising 8 RCT evaluations (n = 34,551 participants) that compared SGLT2‐Is with placebo in patients with T2DM against a background of standard care and reported subgroup results for those treated with or without RAAS‐Is at baseline were included. No RCT specifically investigated the combination of SGLT2 and RAAS inhibitors compared with SGLT2‐Is alone. The RRs (95% CIs) for composite cardiovascular outcome and composite CVD death/heart failure hospitalization comparing SGLT2‐Is vs placebo in patients on RAAS‐Is were 0.93 (0.85–1.01) and 0.88 (0.76–1.02), respectively. The corresponding estimates for patients not on RAAS‐Is were 0.78 (0.65–0.93) and 0.73 (0.65–0.82), respectively. There was no evidence of interactions between RAAS‐I status and the effects of SGLT2‐Is for both outcomes. Single study results showed that SGLT2‐Is vs placebo reduced the risk of composite kidney outcome and cardiovascular death in patients with RAAS inhibition. The effect of SGLT2 inhibition vs placebo on kidney parameters, genital infections, volume depletion, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoglycaemia and other adverse events was similar in patients with or without RAAS inhibition. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregate published data suggest that the combination of SGLT2 and RAAS inhibitors in the treatment of patients with T2DM may be similar in efficacy and safety if not superior to SGLT2‐Is alone. Head‐to‐head comparisons of the two interventions are warranted to inform T2DM management. The use of SGLT2 inhibition as a first‐line therapy in T2DM or its early use in the prevention of renal deterioration and cardiovascular complications in addition to its glycaemic control deserves further study