Search

Aim: Existing data on the association between blood pressure levels and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) are inconsistent. The optimal blood pressure targets for patients with HF remain uncertain. This study sought to assess the associations between blood pressure (systolic [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) levels and adverse cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in patients with HF. Methods and results: A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to 5 May 2023. The outcomes of interest included adverse cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Forty‐three unique observational cohort studies, comprising 120 643 participants with HF, were included. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for SBP thresholds of ≥140 mmHg versus <140 mmHg were 0.92 (0.83–1.01) for all‐cause mortality, 0.83 (0.67–1.04) for CVD death, and 0.98 (0.80–1.21) for HF hospitalization. The pooled RR (95% CI) for SBP thresholds of ≥160 mmHg versus <160 mmHg and all‐cause mortality was 0.67 (0.62–0.74). SBP levels below <130, <120, and <110 mmHg were each associated with an increased risk of various cardiovascular endpoints and all‐cause mortality. The pooled RR (95% CI) for DBP thresholds of ≥80 mmHg versus <80 mmHg and all‐cause mortality was 0.86 (0.67–1.10). A 10 mmHg increase in SBP or DBP was associated with a reduction in all‐cause mortality and other cardiovascular endpoints. Conclusions: The findings suggest that lower and normal baseline SBP levels (<130, <120, and <110 mmHg) may be associated with future risk of worse outcomes in patients with HF. Optimal baseline blood pressure levels for these patients may lie within the range of ≥140 mmHg for SBP. In the absence of observational studies with repeated blood pressure measurements or definitive trials evaluating optimal blood pressure targets, individualized blood pressure targets based on patients' unique circumstances are warranted in HF management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess deintensification approaches and rates and evaluate the harm and benefits of deintensification with antidiabetic medication and other therapies among older people (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes with or without cardiometabolic conditions. Methods: We identified relevant studies in a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to 30 October 2018. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics, details on deintensification and outcomes, and was synthesized using a narrative approach. Results: Ten studies (observational cohorts and interventional studies) with data on 26 558 patients with comorbidities were eligible. Deintensification approaches included complete withdrawal, discontinuation, reducing dosage, conversion, or substitution of at least one medication, but the majority of studies were based on complete withdrawal or discontinuation of antihyperglycaemic medication. Rates of deintensification approaches ranged from 13.4%–75%. The majority of studies reported no deterioration in HbA1c levels, hypoglycaemic episodes, falls or hospitalizations on deintensification. On adverse events and mortality, no significant differences were observed among the comparison groups in the majority of studies. Conclusion: Available but limited evidence suggests that the benefits of deintensification outweigh the harm in older people with type 2 diabetes with or without comorbidities. Given the heterogeneity of patients with diabetes, further research is warranted on which deintensification approaches are appropriate and beneficial for each specific patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate factors associated with delays in receiving glucose‐lowering therapy in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and explore the preferential order and time of intensifications. Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study including 120 409 adults with T2DM initiating first‐ to fourth‐line glucose‐lowering therapy in primary care between 2000 and 2018, using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, Office of National Statistics death registration, and 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation data. Associations were investigated using time‐to‐event analysis. Results: The longest delays to prescription of first‐line therapy were observed in older patients, of black or other ethnicities, and with multimorbidity. People from the most deprived areas received earlier first‐line treatment than those from the least deprived areas. The majority were treated with metformin (82.4%) as the first‐line prescription, sulphonylurea (50.4%) as second‐line, dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor (27.7%) as third‐line, and insulin (28.0%) as fourth‐line. In the past 5 years, there was an increase in prescriptions of dipeptidyl peptidase‐4‐inhibitor and sodium‐glucose transport protein‐2 inhibitor. The median time was 0.5 years for first‐line prescription, 4.1 for second‐line, 4.6 for third‐line and 4.7 for fourth‐line. After T2DM diagnosis, 25% of patients developed cardiovascular disease and non‐cardiovascular disease complications within a median time of 12‐14 years, and received intensification 5‐6 years later. Conclusions: Within the complex challenges of managing blood glucose levels and risk of additional comorbidities, future health care research and guidelines should focus on overcoming therapeutic inertia particularly at an earlier stage for older patients, from ethnic minorities and with multimorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]