Search

We aimed to evaluate the life expectancy following the first cardiovascular disease (CVD) event by type 2 diabetes (T2D) status and ethnicity. We used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in England (UK), linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics information, to identify individuals with and without T2D who survived a first CVD event between 1st Jan 2007 and 31st Dec 2017; subsequent death events were extracted from the Office for National Statistics database. Ethnicity was categorised as White, South Asian (SA), Black, or other. Flexible parametric survival models were used to estimate survival and predict life expectancy. 59,939 individuals with first CVD event were included: 7596 (12.7%) with T2D (60.9% men; mean age at event: 69.7 years [63.2 years in SA, 65.9 in Black, 70.2 in White]) and 52,343 without T2D (56.7% men; 65.9 years [54.7 in Black, 58.2 in SA, 66.3 in White]). Accounting for potential confounders (sex, deprivation, lipid-lowering medication, current smoking, and pre-existing hypertension), comparing individuals with vs without T2D the mortality rate was 53% higher in White (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53 [95% CI: 1.44, 1.62]), corresponding to a potential loss of 3.87 (3.30, 4.44) life years at the age of 50 years in individuals with T2D. No evidence of a difference in life expectancy was observed in individuals of SA (HR: 0.82 [0.52, 1.29]; −1.36 [-4.58, 1.86] life years), Black (HR: 1.26 [0.59, 2.70]; 1.21 [-2.99, 5.41] life years); and other (HR: 1.64 [0.80, 3.39]; 3.89 [-2.28, 9.99] life years) ethnic group. Following a CVD event, T2D is associated with a different prognosis and life years lost among ethnic groups. • Limited evidence for the prognosis of individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) by type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ethnicity. • After first CVD, the largest life expectancy difference was in White ethnicity, (loss of 3.9 years) with vs without T2D. • Differences were non-significant in other ethnicity (3.9 years), Black (1.2 y), South Asian (-1.4 y) with vs without T2D. • Study shows the heterogeneous impact of T2D on life expectancy among individuals of different ethnicity who survived a CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess and compare the benefits and harms of intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) control in older people with or without diabetes mellitus (DM). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Setting: Randomised controlled trials comparing intensive versus standard BP control, identified from MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane library, Web of Science and a search of bibliographies from inception till August 2022. Participants: Older people (≥65 years) with or without DM. Main outcome measures: Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for adverse vascular and safety outcomes. Results: We included six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 20,985 patients (intensive BP = 10,474 and standard BP = 10,511) with a weighted mean follow-up of 3.1 years. In the general population, the RRs (95% CIs) of intensive versus standard BP control for composite cardiovascular events or major adverse cardiovascular events (CVD/MACE), CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure were 0.71 (0.62–0.82), 0.65 (0.49–0.86), 0.75 (0.60–0.95), 0.75 (0.61–0.92) and 0.58 (0.41–0.82), respectively. Intensive BP control did not increase the risk of renal failure or serious adverse events in the general population. Two RCTs reported results for composite CVD/MACE in patients with DM with a pooled estimate of 0.85 (0.67–1.07). Conclusions: Aggregate trial evidence shows that intensive BP control (<120 to <140 mmHg) reduces the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in older hypertensive patients in the general population with no increase in adverse events. Intensive BP control may confer similar benefits for older patients with DM with no evidence for harm, but this is based on limited data. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022349791 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is), used in the management of erectile dysfunction (ED), have potential cardioprotective benefits. The impact of PDE5-Is on reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and ED is uncertain. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we evaluated if (i) the association of PDE5-Is in people with ED and DM and their risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality and (ii) ED confers an excess risk of CVD and mortality in patients with DM compared with no DM.Methods: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science citation search and search of bibliographies to April 2022. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled.Results: Eighteen unique studies reported on the cardiovascular impact of ED in patients with and without DM. In the general population, the RRs (95% CIs) of ED for composite CVD/MACE, all-cause mortality, CHD and stroke were 1.43 (1.31-1.55), 1.47 (1.31-1.65), 1.59 (1.39-1.82), and 1.34 (1.15-1.56), respectively. The respective estimates were 1.68 (1.15-2.45), 1.40 (0.90-2.18), 1.41 (1.24-1.61) and 1.32 (1.09-1.60) in the diabetes population. Interaction analyses suggested similar risk in both populations. Six studies reported the cardiovascular effects of PDE5-Is in people with ED and DM. Limited RCT data showed no significant differences in the risk of major adverse cardiac event (MACE), coronary heart disease (CHD) and all-cause mortality comparing PDE5-I use with non-use: RRs (95% CIs) of 3.47 (0.17-69.19), 1.31 (0.10-16.54) and 0.35 (0.12-1.05), respectively.Conclusions: ED confers no excess risk of CVD and mortality in patients with DM compared with no DM. Limited and inadequately powered data shows no significant differences in the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes comparing use of PDE5-Is with non-use in patients with ED and DM. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022324537. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The clinical benefit of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes remains uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality events in people with diabetes, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a pooled analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from three trials. Methods: Randomised controlled trials of aspirin compared with placebo (or no treatment) in participants with diabetes with no known CVD were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and manual search of bibliographies to January 2019. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were used as the summary measures of associations. Results: We included 12 RCTs based on 34,227 participants with a median treatment duration of 5.0 years. Comparing aspirin use with no aspirin, there was a significant reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)0.89 (0.83–0.95), with a number needed to treat (NNT)of 95 (95% CI 61 to 208) to prevent one MACE over 5 years average follow-up. Evidence was lacking of heterogeneity and publication bias among contributing trials for MACE. Aspirin use had no effect on other endpoints including all-cause mortality; however, there was a significant reduction in stroke for aspirin dosage ≤ 100 mg/day 0.75 (0.59–0.95). There were no significant effects of aspirin use on major bleeding and other bleeding events, though some of the estimates were imprecise. Pooled IPD from the three trials (2306 participants) showed no significant evidence of an effect of aspirin on any of the outcomes evaluated; however, aspirin reduced the risk of MACE in non-smokers 0.70 (0.51–0.96) with a NNT of 33 (95% CI 20 to 246) to prevent one MACE. Conclusions: Aspirin has potential benefits in cardiovascular primary prevention in diabetes. The use of low dose aspirin may need to be individualised and based on each individual's baseline CVD and bleeding risk. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42019122326 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate how sociodemographic factors influence educational modality preferences in people with cardiometabolic disease. This was a cross-sectional study performed in people with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, who completed a questionnaire to denote their previous experience and ranked preferences for different educational modalities. The questionnaire was completed by 3751 people, of whom 59% were men, median (interquartile range) age was 68 (59−76) years, and 78% were White European. In total, 73% had diabetes, 35% had heart disease, and 10% had history of stroke; the majority (83.4%) had one of these conditions. Overall preference was for one-to-one education (77% ranked first choice), and telephone education ranked the lowest. People tended to prefer modalities they had previously experienced. We highlight the importance of considering factors that could influence selection of educational modalities including age, ethnicity, gender and educational level. We anticipate this approach will aid in the design, delivery and tailoring of educational programmes that are accessible to the diverse cohort of people living with chronic diseases, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Given the influence of multiple demographic factors and previous experiences on expressed preferences, providers should support individuals to make informed decisions about educational interventions to maximise engagement. • Education modality preferences differ with age, ethnicity, and educational level. • One-to-one education was the most preferred and telephone the least preferred. • Targeting individual's education modality preferences may help support uptake. • A range of modalities should be available to suit the needs of diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]