Search

Oral anticoagulants are a mainstay of cardiovascular therapy, and for over 60 years vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were the only available agents for long-term use. VKAs interfere with the cyclic inter-conversion of vitamin K and its 2,3 epoxide, thus inhibiting γ-carboxylation of glutamate residues at the amino-termini of vitamin K-dependent proteins, including the coagulation factors (F) II (prothrombin), VII, IX and X, as well as of the anticoagulant proteins C, S and Z. The overall effect of such interference is a dose-dependent anticoagulant effect, which has been therapeutically exploited in heart disease since the early 1950s. In this position paper, we review the mechanisms of action, pharmacological properties and side effects of VKAs, which are used in the management of cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease (where their use is limited), stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, heart valves and/or chronic heart failure. Using an evidence-based approach, we describe the results of completed clinical trials, highlight areas of uncertainty, and recommend therapeutic options for specific disorders. Although VKAs are being increasingly replaced in most patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation by the new oral anticoagulants, which target either thrombin or FXa, the VKAs remain the agents of choice for patients with atrial fibrillation in the setting of rheumatic valvular disease and for those with mechanical heart valves.

Objective: To define the cardiovascular effects of lowering blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease., Design: Collaborative prospective meta-analysis of randomised trials., Data Sources and Eligibility: Participating randomised trials of drugs to lower blood pressure compared with placebo or each other or that compare different blood pressure targets, with at least 1000 patient years of follow-up per arm., Main Outcome Measures: Major cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death) in composite and individually and all cause death., Participants: 26 trials (152,290 participants), including 30,295 individuals with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)., Data Extraction: Individual participant data were available for 23 trials, with summary data from another three. Meta-analysis according to baseline kidney function was performed. Pooled hazard ratios per 5 mm Hg lower blood pressure were estimated with a random effects model., Results: Compared with placebo, blood pressure lowering regimens reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about a sixth per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure in individuals with (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.90) and without reduced eGFR (0.83, 0.79 to 0.88), with no evidence for any difference in effect (P=1.00 for homogeneity). The results were similar irrespective of whether blood pressure was reduced by regimens based on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium antagonists, or diuretics/β blockers. There was no evidence that the effects of different drug classes on major cardiovascular events varied between patients with different eGFR (all P>0.60 for homogeneity)., Conclusions: Blood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for preventing cardiovascular events among people with moderately reduced eGFR. There is little evidence from these overviews to support the preferential choice of particular drug classes for the prevention of cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease.

Background: The vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials., Methods: We undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124,513 participants, 68,342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229,296 participants, 165,456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed)., Findings: Major vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14-1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12-1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31-2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19-2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10-4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89-2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69-1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00-2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95-2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56-6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48-2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17-2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16-3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22-7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71-6·56, p<0·0001)., Interpretation: The vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making., Funding: UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Kidney transplantation is the best treatment for patients with end-stage renal failure, but uncertainty remains about the best immunosuppression strategy. Long-term graft survival has not improved substantially, and one possible explanation is calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity. CNI exposure could be minimized by using more potent induction therapy or alternative maintenance therapy to remove CNIs completely. However, the safety and efficacy of such strategies are unknown., Methods/design: The Campath, Calcineurin inhibitor reduction and Chronic allograft nephropathy (3C) Study is a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial with 852 participants which is addressing two important questions in kidney transplantation. The first question is whether a Campath (alemtuzumab)-based induction therapy strategy is superior to basiliximab-based therapy, and the second is whether, from 6 months after transplantation, a sirolimus-based maintenance therapy strategy is superior to tacrolimus-based therapy. Recruitment is complete, and follow-up will continue for around 5 years post-transplant. The primary endpoint for the induction therapy comparison is biopsy-proven acute rejection by 6 months, and the primary endpoint for the maintenance therapy comparison is change in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to 2 years after transplantation. The study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and endorsed by the British Transplantation Society, and 18 centers for adult kidney transplant are participating., Discussion: Late graft failure is a major issue for kidney-transplant recipients. If our hypothesis that minimizing CNI exposure with Campath-based induction therapy and/or an elective conversion to sirolimus-based maintenance therapy can improve long-term graft function and survival is correct, then patients should experience better graft function for longer. A positive outcome could change clinical practice in kidney transplantation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01120028 and ISRCTN88894088.

Anticoagulants are a mainstay of cardiovascular therapy, and parenteral anticoagulants have widespread use in cardiology, especially in acute situations. Parenteral anticoagulants include unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, the synthetic pentasaccharides fondaparinux, idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux, and parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors. The several shortcomings of unfractionated heparin and of low-molecular-weight heparins have prompted the development of the other newer agents. Here we review the mechanisms of action, pharmacological properties and side effects of parenteral anticoagulants used in the management of coronary heart disease treated with or without percutaneous coronary interventions, cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, and prosthetic heart valves and valve repair. Using an evidence-based approach, we describe the results of completed clinical trials, highlight ongoing research with currently available agents, and recommend therapeutic options for specific heart diseases.

Contrary to previous models based on plasma, coagulation processes are currently believed to be mostly cell surface-based, including three overlapping phases: initiation, when tissue factor-expressing cells and microparticles are exposed to plasma; amplification, whereby small amounts of thrombin induce platelet activation and aggregation, and promote activation of factors (F)V, FVIII and FXI on platelet surfaces; and propagation, in which the Xase (tenase) and prothrombinase complexes are formed, producing a burst of thrombin and the cleavage of fibrinogen to fibrin. Thrombin exerts a number of additional biological actions, including platelet activation, amplification and self-inhibition of coagulation, clot stabilisation and anti-fibrinolysis, in processes occurring in the proximity of vessel injury, tightly regulated by a series of inhibitory mechanisms. "Classical" anticoagulants, including heparin and vitamin K antagonists, typically target multiple coagulation steps. A number of new anticoagulants, already developed or under development, target specific steps in the process, inhibiting a single coagulation factor or mimicking natural coagulation inhibitors.

Until recently, vitamin K antagonists were the only available oral anticoagulants, but with numerous limitations that prompted the introduction of new oral anticoagulants targeting the single coagulation enzymes thrombin (dabigatran) or factor Xa (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban) and given in fixed doses without coagulation monitoring. Here we review the pharmacology and the results of clinical trials with these new agents in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and secondary prevention after acute coronary syndromes, providing perspectives on their future incorporation into clinical practice. In phase III trials in atrial fibrillation, compared with warfarin, dabigatran etexilate 150 mg B.I.D. reduced the rates of stroke/systemic embolism without any difference in major bleeding; dabigatran etexilate 110 mg B.I.D. had similar efficacy with decreased bleeding; apixaban 5 mg B.I.D. reduced stroke, systemic embolism, and mortality as well as major bleeding; and rivaroxaban 20 mg Q.D. was noninferior to warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism without a difference in major bleeding. All these agents reduced intracranial hemorrhage. Edoxaban is currently being evaluated in a further large phase III trial. Apixaban and rivaroxaban were evaluated in phase III trials for prevention of recurrent ischemia in patients with acute coronary syndromes who were mostly receiving dual antiplatelet therapy, with conflicting results on efficacy but consistent results for increased major bleeding. Overall, the new oral anticoagulants are poised to replace vitamin K antagonists for many patients with atrial fibrillation and may have a role after acute coronary syndromes. Although convenient to administer and manage, they present challenges that need to be addressed., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The balance of benefits and risks of aspirin in primary prevention is far less clear than in secondary prevention; further data from randomized trials of individuals at intermediate cardiovascular risk are needed. Decisions about aspirin in primary prevention should be made on a case-by-case basis, and general guidelines are not justified.

Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials., Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10])., Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

The clinical pharmacology of antiplatelet drugs has been reviewed previously by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Task force and by the 8th American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Moreover, information on the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet drugs in the treatment and prevention of atherothrombosis is provided by collaborative meta-analyses of 287 secondary prevention trials and 6 primary prevention trials. The present document intends to provide practicing physicians with an updated instrument to guide their choice of the most suitable antiplatelet strategy for the individual patient at risk, or with different clinical manifestations, of atherothrombosis.

Background: Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients., Methods: This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and ISRCTN54137607., Findings: 4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0·85 mmol/L (SE 0·02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4·9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11·3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13·4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·74-0·94; log-rank p=0·0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4·6%] vs 230 [5·0%]; RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·76-1·11; p=0·37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2·8%] vs 174 [3·8%]; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6·1%] vs 352 [7·6%]; RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; p=0·0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10,000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0·2%] vs 5 [0·1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0·5%] vs 18 [0·4%]), gallstones (106 [2·3%] vs 106 [2·3%]), or cancer (438 [9·4%] vs 439 [9·5%], p=0·89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14·4%] vs 612 [13·2%], p=0·13)., Interpretation: Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease., Funding: Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (MVEs) and death, but differences in methodology make between-study comparisons difficult. We used a novel method to summarise the published results., Methods and Findings: Studies assessing the relationship between baseline eGFR and subsequent MVEs or all cause mortality were identified using Pubmed. Those which involved at least 500 individuals, planned at least 1 year of follow-up, reported age and sex adjusted relative risks, and provided the mean eGFR in each category (or sufficient information to allow its estimation) were included. To take account of differences in underlying risk between studies, proportional within-study differences in eGFR (rather than absolute eGFR values) were related to risk. Fifty studies (2 million participants) assessing MVEs and 67 studies (5 million participants) assessing all cause mortality were eligible. There was an inverse relationship between lower eGFR and the risk of MVEs and of death. In studies among people without prior vascular disease, a 30% lower eGFR level was on average associated with a 29% (SE 0.2%) increase in the risk of a MVE and a 31% (SE 0.2%) increase in the risk of death from any cause. In studies among people with prior vascular disease, these estimates were 26% (SE 1.0%) and 23% (SE 0.2%) respectively. While there was substantial statistical heterogeneity between the results of individual studies, a 30% lower eGFR was consistently associated with a 20-30% higher risk of both outcomes, irrespective of prior history of vascular disease or study design., Conclusions: Lower eGFR was consistently associated with a moderate increase in the risk of death and MVEs. If these relationships are causal and continuous, then around one fifth of vascular events among those over 70 years might be attributable to renal impairment.

Background: Validated prediction scores are required to assess the risks of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and death in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Study Design: Prospective cohort study with validation in a separate cohort., Setting & Participants: Cox regression was used to assess the relevance of baseline characteristics to risk of ESRD (mean follow-up, 4.1 years) and death (mean follow-up, 6.0 years) in 382 patients with stages 3-5 CKD not initially on dialysis therapy in the Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB) Study. Resultant risk prediction equations were tested in a separate cohort of 213 patients with CKD (the East Kent cohort)., Factors: 44 baseline characteristics (including 30 blood and urine assays)., Outcomes: ESRD and all-cause mortality., Results: In the CRIB cohort, 190 patients reached ESRD (12.1%/y) and 150 died (6.5%/y). Each 30% lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was associated with a 3-fold higher ESRD rate and a 1.3-fold higher death rate. After adjustment for each other, only baseline creatinine level, serum phosphate level, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, and female sex remained strongly (P < 0.01) predictive of ESRD. For death, age, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, troponin T level, and cigarette smoking remained strongly predictive of risk. Using these factors to predict outcomes in the East Kent cohort yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ie, C statistic) of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) for ESRD and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89) for death., Limitations: Other important factors may have been missed because of limited study power., Conclusions: Simple laboratory measures of kidney and cardiac function plus age, sex, and smoking history can be used to help identify patients with CKD at highest risk of ESRD and death. Larger cohort studies are required to further validate these results., (Copyright © 2010 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lowering of LDL cholesterol with standard statin regimens reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in a wide range of individuals. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with statin therapy., Methods: We undertook meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials involving at least 1000 participants and at least 2 years' treatment duration of more versus less intensive statin regimens (five trials; 39 612 individuals; median follow-up 5·1 years) and of statin versus control (21 trials; 129 526 individuals; median follow-up 4·8 years). For each type of trial, we calculated not only the average risk reduction, but also the average risk reduction per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction at 1 year after randomisation., Findings: In the trials of more versus less intensive statin therapy, the weighted mean further reduction in LDL cholesterol at 1 year was 0·51 mmol/L. Compared with less intensive regimens, more intensive regimens produced a highly significant 15% (95% CI 11-18; p<0·0001) further reduction in major vascular events, consisting of separately significant reductions in coronary death or non-fatal myocardial infarction of 13% (95% CI 7-19; p<0·0001), in coronary revascularisation of 19% (95% CI 15-24; p<0·0001), and in ischaemic stroke of 16% (95% CI 5-26; p=0·005). Per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, these further reductions in risk were similar to the proportional reductions in the trials of statin versus control. When both types of trial were combined, similar proportional reductions in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction were found in all types of patient studied (rate ratio [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·76-0·80; p<0·0001), including those with LDL cholesterol lower than 2 mmol/L on the less intensive or control regimen. Across all 26 trials, all-cause mortality was reduced by 10% per 1·0 mmol/L LDL reduction (RR 0·90, 95% CI 0·87-0·93; p<0·0001), largely reflecting significant reductions in deaths due to coronary heart disease (RR 0·80, 99% CI 0·74-0·87; p<0·0001) and other cardiac causes (RR 0·89, 99% CI 0·81-0·98; p=0·002), with no significant effect on deaths due to stroke (RR 0·96, 95% CI 0·84-1·09; p=0·5) or other vascular causes (RR 0·98, 99% CI 0·81-1·18; p=0·8). No significant effects were observed on deaths due to cancer or other non-vascular causes (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·92-1·03; p=0·3) or on cancer incidence (RR 1·00, 95% CI 0·96-1·04; p=0·9), even at low LDL cholesterol concentrations., Interpretation: Further reductions in LDL cholesterol safely produce definite further reductions in the incidence of heart attack, of revascularisation, and of ischaemic stroke, with each 1·0 mmol/L reduction reducing the annual rate of these major vascular events by just over a fifth. There was no evidence of any threshold within the cholesterol range studied, suggesting that reduction of LDL cholesterol by 2-3 mmol/L would reduce risk by about 40-50%., Funding: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, European Community Biomed Programme, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and National Heart Foundation., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the relevance of cystatin C, as a marker of mild-to-moderate renal impairment, for vascular and nonvascular mortality in older people., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Re-survey in 1997 to 1998 of survivors in the 1970 Whitehall study of London civil servants., Subjects: Five thousand three hundred and seventy-one men (mean age at resurvey: 77 years) who took part in the resurvey and had plasma cystatin C concentration measured., Main Outcome Measures: Cause-specific mortality over subsequent 11 years (1997 to 2008)., Methods: Cox regression was used to estimate the associations of cystatin C with vascular and nonvascular mortality, before and after adjustment for prior disease and other risk factors (including lifetime blood pressure)., Results: During an 11.0-year follow-up period, there were 1171 deaths from vascular causes [26 per 1000 per year (py)] and 1615 deaths from nonvascular causes (36 per 1000 py). Compared with men with cystatin C in the bottom fifth of the distribution, men in the top 10th had about two-fold higher mortality rates from vascular and nonvascular mortality (fully adjusted P both <0.001) even after adjustment for prior disease and all measured confounders, including lifetime blood pressure. The fully adjusted relative risks per 50% higher cystatin C concentrations were 1.66 [95% CI 1.48 to 1.85] for vascular mortality, 1.92 [95% CI 1.66 to 2.22] for ischaemic heart disease mortality and 1.46 [95% CI 1.31 to 1.61] for nonvascular mortality., Conclusions: In older men, plasma concentration of cystatin C, probably as a marker of mild renal disease, is a strong independent predictor of both vascular and nonvascular mortality.

Background: Percutaneous revascularization of the renal arteries improves patency in atherosclerotic renovascular disease, yet evidence of a clinical benefit is limited., Methods: In a randomized, unblinded trial, we assigned 806 patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease either to undergo revascularization in addition to receiving medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was renal function, as measured by the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level (a measure that has a linear relationship with creatinine clearance). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, the time to renal and major cardiovascular events, and mortality. The median follow-up was 34 months., Results: During a 5-year period, the rate of progression of renal impairment (as shown by the slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level) was -0.07x10(-3) liters per micromole per year in the revascularization group, as compared with -0.13x10(-3) liters per micromole per year in the medical-therapy group, a difference favoring revascularization of 0.06x10(-3) liters per micromole per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.002 to 0.13; P=0.06). Over the same time, the mean serum creatinine level was 1.6 micromol per liter (95% CI, -8.4 to 5.2 [0.02 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.06]) lower in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group. There was no significant between-group difference in systolic blood pressure; the decrease in diastolic blood pressure was smaller in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group. The two study groups had similar rates of renal events (hazard ratio in the revascularization group, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.40; P=0.88), major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19; P=0.61), and death (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P=0.46). Serious complications associated with revascularization occurred in 23 patients, including 2 deaths and 3 amputations of toes or limbs., Conclusions: We found substantial risks but no evidence of a worthwhile clinical benefit from revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN59586944.), (2009 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention., Methods: We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95,000 individuals at low average risk, 660,000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17,000 individuals at high average risk, 43,000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period., Findings: In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0.51% aspirin vs 0.57% control per year, p=0.0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18%vs 0.23% per year, p<0.0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0.20%vs 0.21% per year, p=0.4: haemorrhagic stroke 0.04%vs 0.03%, p=0.05; other stroke 0.16%vs 0.18% per year, p=0.08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0.19%vs 0.19% per year, p=0.7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0.10%vs 0.07% per year, p<0.0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6.7%vs 8.2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2.08%vs 2.54% per year, p=0.002) and in coronary events (4.3%vs 5.3% per year, p<0.0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women., Interpretation: In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress., Funding: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.

Background: Five years of statin therapy lowers low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol substantially and, over a 5-year period, results in reductions in the incidence of cardiovascular events. The Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677) has raised the hypothesis that adding ezetimibe to statin therapy for larger LDL cholesterol reductions might increase the incidence of cancer., Methods: We compared the results of a hypothesis-generating analysis of the incidence of cancer in the SEAS trial of ezetimibe plus simvastatin in 1873 patients (mean follow-up after ezetimibe or matching placebo was begun, 4.1 years) with a hypothesis-testing analysis of cancer data from the two large ongoing trials of this regimen: the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) (NCT00125593) with 9264 patients (mean follow-up, 2.7 years) and the Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) (NCT00202878), currently with 11,353 patients (mean follow-up, 1.0 year)., Results: In the SEAS trial, assignment to ezetimibe was associated with an increase in any new onset of cancer (101 patients in the active-treatment group vs. 65 in the control group) from several cancer sites. In SHARP and IMPROVE-IT combined, there was no overall excess of cancer (313 active-treatment vs. 326 control; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.12; P=0.61) and no significant excess at any particular site. Among patients assigned to ezetimibe, there were more, albeit not significantly more, deaths from cancer (97, vs. 72 in the control group; P=0.07), but there were also fewer, although not significantly fewer, other cases of cancer (216, vs. 254 in the control group; P=0.08). There was no evidence of a trend in the risk ratio for incidence of or death from cancer with increasing duration of follow-up., Conclusions: The available results from these three trials do not provide credible evidence of any adverse effect of ezetimibe on rates of cancer. Follow-up of longer duration will permit the balance of risks and benefits to be determined more reliably., (2008 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Improvements in immunosuppressive regimens are likely to be moderate in size. Therefore, studies to detect them reliably require a guarantee of small biases (so randomization is essential) and small random errors. Even after adjustment, nonrandomized studies may have large biases, so are not a suitable alternative to large randomized trials.

Errors in the design, the conduct, the data collection process, and the analysis of a randomized trial have the potential to affect not only the safety of the patients in the trial, but also, through the introduction of bias, the safety of future patients. Trial monitoring, defined broadly to include methods of oversight which begin when the study is designed and continue until it is reported in a publication, has a role to play in eliminating such errors. On-site monitoring can be extremely inefficient for the identification of errors most likely to compromise patient safety or bias study results. However, a variety of other monitoring strategies offer alternatives to on-site monitoring. Each new trial should conduct a risk assessment to identify the optimal means of monitoring, taking into account the likely sources of error, their consequences for patients, the study's validity, and the available resources. Trial management committees should consider central statistical monitoring a key aspect of such monitoring. The systematic application of this approach would be likely to lead to tangible benefits, and resources that are currently wasted on inefficient on-site monitoring could be diverted to increasing trial sample sizes or conducting more trials.

Higher cholesterol is strongly associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in nonrenal populations, so the lack of a clear positive association between total cholesterol and mortality among dialysis patients is unexpected. This review of prospective studies of the association between total cholesterol and mortality among dialysis patients suggests that there is a negative association at below average cholesterol levels and a flat or weakly positive association at higher levels. In nonrenal populations total cholesterol is not positively associated with vascular causes of death other than CHD, so the lack of a strongly positive association at above average cholesterol concentrations in dialysis patients may be explained by the high proportion of deaths due to non-CHD vascular causes. The observation of a negative association between total cholesterol and mortality at below average cholesterol concentrations in some studies is consistent with confounding by both vascular and nonvascular morbidity (i.e., reverse causality). We argue that evaluating the importance of cholesterol for vascular disease risk in dialysis patients can only be achieved through the eradication of confounding by randomization, and that ongoing trials of cholesterol-lowering therapy will provide a definitive answer to this question.

Background: Exogenous tracer-based methods of measuring glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are difficult to perform, whilst creatinine-based estimation formulae are inaccurate., Methods: We assessed a new technique of measuring iohexol clearance using timed dried capillary blood spots. A reference GFR was measured in 81 subjects (GFR 15-124 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) by iohexol clearance using three venous samples (2, 3 and 4 h after an intravenous bolus). GFR was estimated by six test methods; iohexol clearance using (i) 3 blood spots (2, 3, 4 h); (ii) 2 blood spots (2, 4 h) and (iii) 1 blood spot (4 h); (iv) the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula; (v) the Cockcroft-Gault formula, and (vi) a formula estimating GFR from serum cystatin C concentration. For each test method the bias and precision were calculated as the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the 'GFR differences' (test method GFR - reference GFR)., Results: The limits of agreement (bias +/-1.96 x SD; in ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were: (i) 1.1 +/- 15.1 for 3-spot iohexol clearance; (ii) 0.6 +/- 14.9 for 2-spot iohexol clearance; (iii) 4.5 +/- 21.2 for 1-spot iohexol clearance; (iv) -15.7 +/- 33.3 for the MDRD formula; (v) -9.6 +/- 32.9 for the Cockcroft-Gault formula, and (vi) -12.1 +/- 31.7 for the Cystatin C formula. The accuracy of all six test methods was similar among individuals with GFR <60 ml/min/ 1.73 m(2); however, in individuals with GFR > or =60 ml/min/ 1.73 m(2), the MDRD, Cockcroft-Gault and Cystatin C formulae were all imprecise and systematically underestimated GFR., Conclusions: Blood spot iohexol clearance provides a potentially practical method of estimating GFR accurately in large-scale epidemiological studies especially among individuals without established chronic kidney disease., (Copyright 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Disturbances in mineral and vitamin D metabolism, which affect parathyroid hormone (PTH) synthesis, are well recognized in patients receiving dialysis. However, it is unclear at what stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) these abnormalities develop., Methods: The associations between CKD stages 3 and 5, and alterations of calcium, phosphate, vitamin D and PTH concentrations were assessed in 249 patients (mean age 61 years, 66% male) and 79 age- and sex-matched healthy controls., Results: As compared to controls, serum phosphate concentrations were elevated among CKD patients (1.40 vs. 1.11 mmol/l; p < 0.0001). And levels of both 25-hydroxyvitamin D (42.1 vs. 60.4 nmol/l; p < 0.0001) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (58.2 vs. 119.5 pmol/l; p < 0.0001) were lower among patients with CKD, even among those with only stage 3 CKD and despite 73% of patients receiving vitamin D supplements. The ratio of 1,25-dihydroxy- to 25-hydroxyvitamin D was lower than controls, even among patients with stage 3 CKD (p = 0.0001), and this ratio diminished with advancing renal impairment. Concomitant elevations were observed in intact PTH (13.8 vs. 4.2 pmol/l; p < 0.0001) and whole PTH (7.9 vs. 2.7 pmol/l; p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Impaired conversion of 25-hydroxy- to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is an early feature of renal disease, and progresses as renal function deteriorates., ((c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose of Review: To summarize recent and ongoing randomized trials of statin therapy for the prevention of major vascular events., Recent Findings: Four large-scale randomized trials have compared high-dose vs. standard doses of statin therapy among patients with coronary heart disease, and their results suggest that higher doses are more effective for preventing major vascular events, albeit with evidence of increased toxicity. There is now clear evidence that statin therapy is effective among most patients with type 2 diabetes, although uncertainty remains about the benefits in those with advanced nephropathy. Ongoing trials will assess whether statin therapy is beneficial among patients with noncoronary vascular disease (such as congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or aortic stenosis), and among people with comorbid conditions or risk factors that increase the risk of vascular disease (including chronic kidney disease and raised C-reactive protein with below average low-density lipoprotein cholesterol)., Summary: Statin therapy safely reduces the risk of vascular events in a wide range of patients. Uncertainties persist about the effects of higher statin doses and the role of statins among patients with specific conditions or risk factors.

Objective: To assess the effects of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the risk of vascular events., Design: Meta-analysis of published and unpublished tabular data from randomised trials, with indirect estimation of the effects of traditional NSAIDs., Data Sources: Medline and Embase (January 1966 to April 2005); Food and Drug Administration records; and data on file from Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck., Review Methods: Eligible studies were randomised trials that included a comparison of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus placebo or a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus a traditional NSAID, of at least four weeks' duration, with information on serious vascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death). Individual investigators and manufacturers provided information on the number of patients randomised, numbers of vascular events, and the person time of follow-up for each randomised group., Results: In placebo comparisons, allocation to a selective COX 2 inhibitor was associated with a 42% relative increase in the incidence of serious vascular events (1.2%/year v 0.9%/year; rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.78; P = 0.003), with no significant heterogeneity among the different selective COX 2 inhibitors. This was chiefly attributable to an increased risk of myocardial infarction (0.6%/year v 0.3%/year; 1.86, 1.33 to 2.59; P = 0.0003), with little apparent difference in other vascular outcomes. Among trials of at least one year's duration (mean 2.7 years), the rate ratio for vascular events was 1.45 (1.12 to 1.89; P = 0.005). Overall, the incidence of serious vascular events was similar between a selective COX 2 inhibitor and any traditional NSAID (1.0%/year v 0.9%/year; 1.16, 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.1). However, statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.001) was found between trials of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus naproxen (1.57, 1.21 to 2.03) and of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus non-naproxen NSAIDs (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12). The summary rate ratio for vascular events, compared with placebo, was 0.92 (0.67 to 1.26) for naproxen, 1.51 (0.96 to 2.37) for ibuprofen, and 1.63 (1.12 to 2.37) for diclofenac., Conclusions: Selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with a moderate increase in the risk of vascular events, as are high dose regimens of ibuprofen and diclofenac, but high dose naproxen is not associated with such an excess.

Background: Evaluating the effects of decreasing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels requires large randomized trials. In preparation for such a trial, we assessed the biochemical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adding ezetimibe, 10 mg/d, to simvastatin, 20 mg/d, as initial therapy for such patients., Methods: Two hundred three patients (152 predialysis patients with creatinine levels > or = 1.7 mg/dL [> or = 150 micromol/L], 18 patients on peritoneal dialysis therapy, and 33 patients on hemodialysis therapy) were randomly assigned to the administration of simvastatin, 20 mg/d, plus ezetimibe, 10 mg/d; or simvastatin, 20 mg, plus placebo ezetimibe daily., Results: After 6 months, allocation to simvastatin monotherapy was associated with a 31-mg/dL (0.8-mmol/L) decrease in nonfasting LDL cholesterol levels compared with baseline. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe produced an additional 18-mg/dL (0.47-mmol/L) decrease in LDL cholesterol level, representing an incremental 21% reduction over that achieved with simvastatin monotherapy (P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant effects of the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin on triglyceride or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Ezetimibe was not associated with an excess risk of abnormal liver function test results or of elevated creatine kinase levels and did not impair absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. There were no serious adverse events caused by study treatment., Conclusion: This 6-month study shows that the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin, 20 mg/d, as initial therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease was well tolerated and produced an additional 21% decrease in LDL cholesterol levels. The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy in this population are now being assessed in a large randomized trial.

Background: Results of previous randomised trials have shown that interventions that lower LDL cholesterol concentrations can significantly reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other major vascular events in a wide range of individuals. But each separate trial has limited power to assess particular outcomes or particular categories of participant., Methods: A prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 individuals in 14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol., Findings: During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths, 14,348 individuals had major vascular events, and 5103 developed cancer. Mean LDL cholesterol differences at 1 year ranged from 0.35 mmol/L to 1.77 mmol/L (mean 1.09) in these trials. There was a 12% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (rate ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.91; p<0.0001). This reflected a 19% reduction in coronary mortality (0.81, 0.76-0.85; p<0.0001), and non-significant reductions in non-coronary vascular mortality (0.93, 0.83-1.03; p=0.2) and non-vascular mortality (0.95, 0.90-1.01; p=0.1). There were corresponding reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.77, 0.74-0.80; p<0.0001), in the need for coronary revascularisation (0.76, 0.73-0.80; p<0.0001), in fatal or non-fatal stroke (0.83, 0.78-0.88; p<0.0001), and, combining these, of 21% in any such major vascular event (0.79, 0.77-0.81; p<0.0001). The proportional reduction in major vascular events differed significantly (p<0.0001) according to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved, but not otherwise. These benefits were significant within the first year, but were greater in subsequent years. Taking all years together, the overall reduction of about one fifth per mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction translated into 48 (95% CI 39-57) fewer participants having major vascular events per 1000 among those with pre-existing CHD at baseline, compared with 25 (19-31) per 1000 among participants with no such history. There was no evidence that statins increased the incidence of cancer overall (1.00, 0.95-1.06; p=0.9) or at any particular site., Interpretation: Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an individual's absolute risk of such events and to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of major vascular event.

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, but the efficacy and safety of simvastatin and aspirin are unknown in this patient group., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 factorial design to the administration of: (1) 20 mg of simvastatin daily versus matching placebo, and (2) 100 mg of modified-release aspirin daily versus matching placebo., Results: Overall, 448 patients with chronic kidney disease were randomly assigned (242 predialysis patients with a creatinine level > or = 1.7 mg/dL [> or =150 micromol/L], 73 patients on dialysis therapy, and 133 patients with a functioning transplant). Compliance with study treatments was 80% at 12 months. Allocation to treatment with 100 mg of aspirin daily was not associated with an excess of major bleeds (aspirin, 4 of 225 patients [2%] versus placebo, 6 of 223 patients [3%]; P = not significant [NS]), although there was a 3-fold excess of minor bleeds (34 of 225 [15%] versus 12 of 223 patients [5%]; P = 0.001). Among those with predialysis renal failure or a functioning transplant at baseline, aspirin did not increase the number of patients who progressed to dialysis therapy (7 of 187 [4%] versus 6 of 188 patients [3%]; P = NS) or experienced a greater than 20% increase in creatinine level (63 of 187 patients [34%] versus 56 of 188 patients [30%]; P = NS). After 12 months of follow-up, allocation to 20 mg of simvastatin daily reduced nonfasting total cholesterol levels by 18% (simvastatin, 163 mg/dL [4.22 mmol/L] versus placebo, 196 mg/dL [5.08 mmol/L]; P < 0.0001), directly measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by 24% (89 mg/dL [2.31 mmol/L] versus 114 mg/dL [2.96 mmol/L]; P < 0.0001), and triglyceride levels by 13% (166 mg/dL [1.87 mmol/L] versus 186 mg/dL [2.10 mmol/L]; P < 0.01), but there was no significant effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (2% increase; P = NS). Allocation to simvastatin therapy was not associated with excess risk for abnormal liver function test results or elevated creatine kinase levels., Conclusion: During a 1-year treatment period, simvastatin, 20 mg/d, produced a sustained reduction of approximately one quarter in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, with no evidence of toxicity, and aspirin, 100 mg/d, did not substantially increase the risk for a major bleeding episode. Much larger trials are now needed to assess whether these treatments can prevent vascular events.

Purpose of Review: This review outlines the limited information currently available on the effects of statins among patients with chronic kidney disease, and summarizes the ongoing randomized trials designed to address this question., Recent Findings: The effects of fluvastatin on major coronary events among renal transplant patients, and the effects of pravastatin and simvastatin in small subgroups of coronary patients with minor degrees of renal impairment, appear broadly compatible with those observed in trials conducted in non-renal populations. In addition, recent evidence from trials among patients with vascular disease or diabetes suggests that statin therapy may delay progressive loss of renal function. However, there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the effects of statin therapy among patients with established chronic kidney disease (pre-dialysis or dialysis patients). In particular, there does not appear to be a strongly positive relationship between blood cholesterol and cardiovascular events in such patients. This may be because uraemic cardiomyopathy and arteriosclerosis, which cause the majority of these events in chronic kidney disease patients, do not depend strongly on blood cholesterol., Summary: Statins appear effective for the prevention of vascular events in people with established vascular disease and mild renal impairment, and may delay renal disease progression in such individuals. However, the effects of statins in patients with established chronic kidney disease are unknown, and we await the results of ongoing large-scale randomized trials of statin therapy among such patients.

Background: Studies in the general population suggest that low-grade inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and platelet activation are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events., Methods: Markers of inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and platelet activation were measured in 334 patients with chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine >1.47 mg/dL [>130 micromol/L] at screening) and compared with 2 age- and sex-matched control groups, 1 comprising 92 patients with coronary artery disease and the other comprising 96 apparently healthy individuals with no history of cardiovascular or kidney disease., Results: There was evidence of low-grade inflammation in the chronic renal impairment group compared with healthy controls, with higher concentrations of C-reactive protein (3.70 versus 2.18 mg/L, P < 0.01) and fibrinogen (3.48 versus 2.67 g/L, P < 0.001) and lower serum albumin concentration (41.8 versus 44.0 g/dL [418 versus 440 g/L], P < 0.001). More severe renal impairment was associated with a trend towards higher fibrinogen and lower albumin concentrations (both P < 0.001), although there was no association with higher C-reactive protein level. As compared to healthy controls, plasma von Willebrand factor (142 versus 108 IU/dL, P < 0.001) and soluble P-selectin concentrations (57.0 versus 43.3 ng/mL, P < 0.001) were also higher in the chronic renal impairment group. More severe renal impairment was associated with a trend towards higher levels of von Willebrand factor (P < 0.001) and of soluble P selectin (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: This cross-sectional analysis demonstrates that chronic kidney disease is associated with low-grade inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and platelet activation, even among patients with moderate renal impairment.

Despite extensive knowledge about abnormal lipid patterns in patients with end-stage renal disease, the association between cholesterol and the development of renal dysfunction is unclear. We evaluated this association in a prospective cohort study among 4,483 initially healthy men participating in the Physicians' Health Study who provided blood samples in 1982 and 1996. Main outcome measures were elevated creatinine, defined as >/= 1.5 mg/dl (133 micromol/L), and reduced estimated creatinine clearance, defined as /= 240 mg/dl), HDL (<40 or >/= 40 mg/dl), total non-HDL cholesterol, and the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. We used logistic regression to calculate age- and multivariable adjusted odds ratios as a measure for the relative risk. After 14 yr, 134 men (3.0%) had elevated creatinine and 244 (5.4%) had reduced creatinine clearance. The multivariable relative risk for elevated creatinine was 1.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 2.86) for total cholesterol >/= 240 mg/dl, 2.16 (95% CI, 1.42 to 3.27) for HDL <40 mg/dl, 2.34 (95% CI, 1.34 to 4.07) for the highest quartile of total cholesterol/HDL ratio (>/= >6.8), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.22 to 3.80) for the highest quartile of non-HDL cholesterol (>/= 196.1). Similar although smaller associations were observed between cholesterol parameters and reduced creatinine clearance. Elevated total cholesterol, high non-HDL cholesterol, a high ratio of total cholesterol/HDL, and low HDL in particular were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing renal dysfunction in men with an initial creatinine <1.5 mg/dl.

Among patients with preexisting coronary heart disease, large-scale randomized trials have demonstrated that lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol concentration by about 1 mmol/L for 4-5 years reduces the risk of coronary events and strokes by about 25%. Patients with established chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk of vascular disease, so the benefits of cholesterol-lowering therapy might be expected to be substantial in this population. Patients with CKD have generally been excluded from previous trials, however, and there is currently no reliable randomized evidence that lowering LDL-cholesterol would be beneficial among them. There are several reasons why the demonstrated benefits of lowering blood cholesterol in other populations might not translate to patients with CKD. First, observational studies among dialysis patients have reported a negative association between blood total cholesterol and mortality. Second, only about one quarter of cardiac mortality in such patients appears to be attributable to acute myocardial infarction, and potentially avoidable with cholesterol lowering, while the other common causes (e.g., cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, and heart failure) may not be as dependent on cholesterol levels. Finally, the long-term safety of cholesterol reduction among patients with CKD remains unclear. Hence, there is an important need for reliable direct evidence on whether lowering cholesterol prevents a worthwhile proportion of vascular events, without unacceptable toxicity, among patients with CKD. The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) aims to assess the effects of cholesterol-lowering therapy with a combination of simvastatin and the cholesterol-absorption inhibitor ezetimide among around 9000 patients with CKD.

Patients with chronic renal impairment (CRI) are at greatly increased risk for premature vascular disease; however, little is known about its evolution. This paper describes a cohort of patients with CRI and reports study design, baseline demographic and biochemical data, and comparisons with two contemporaneous age- and sex-matched control groups, one with established coronary artery disease and the other without overt vascular disease. Among 369 individuals (median age, 63 years; range, 18 to 88 years; 67% men) with CRI, 34% had a history of vascular disease and 21% had electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Even in those with mild renal impairment (serum creatinine < 2.1 mg/dL), approximately one third had vascular disease and 12% had LVH. A history of hypertension was present in 76% of the CRI group, but as compared with controls, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were not elevated. Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration also was not elevated, but CRI was associated with elevated serum triglyceride and plasma homocysteine levels and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hemoglobin, and serum albumin concentrations. Across the spectrum of CRI, more severe renal dysfunction was associated with lower levels of diastolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, albumin, and hemoglobin, but increased levels of plasma homocysteine. This cross-sectional analysis shows that vascular disease is common in individuals with mild CRI attending a nephrology program and also suggests trends in the levels of a number of potential vascular risk factors with respect to severity of renal dysfunction. These results will be further quantified in a prospective biennial follow-up.

Objectives: We sought to determine whether the clinical effects of early angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ACEi) treatment for acute myocardial infarction (MI) are influenced by the concomitant use of aspirin (ASA)., Background: Aspirin and ACEi both reduce mortality when given early after MI. Aspirin inhibits the synthesis of vasodilating prostaglandins, and, in principle, this inhibition might antagonize some of the effects of ACEi. But it is uncertain whether, in practice, this influences the effects of ACEi on mortality and major morbidity after MI., Methods: This overview sought individual patient data from all trials involving more than 1,000 patients randomly allocated to receive ACEi or control starting in the acute phase of MI (0-36 h from onset) and continuing for four to six weeks. Data on concomitant ASA use were available for 96,712 of 98,496 patients in four eligible trials (and for none of 1,556 patients in the one other eligible trial)., Results: Overall 30-day mortality was 7.1% among patients allocated to ACEi and 7.6% among those allocated to control, corresponding to a 7% (standard deviation [SD], 2%) proportional reduction (95% confidence interval 2% to 11%, p = 0.004). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was associated with similar proportional reductions in 30-day mortality among the 86,484 patients who were taking ASA (6% [SD, 3%] reduction) and among the 10,228 patients who were not (10% [SD, 5%] reduction: chi-squared test of heterogeneity between these reductions = 0.4; p = 0.5). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor produced definite increases in the incidence of persistent hypotension (17.9% ACEi vs. 9.4% control) and of renal dysfunction (1.3% ACEi vs. 0.6% control), but there was no good evidence that these effects were different in the presence or absence of ASA (chi-squared for heterogeneity = 0.4 and 0.0, respectively; both not significant). Nor was there good evidence that the effects of ACEi on other clinical outcomes were changed by concomitant ASA use., Conclusions: Both ASA and ACEi are beneficial in acute MI. The present results support the early use of ACEi in acute MI, irrespective of whether or not ASA is being given.

The reliable detection of moderate differences in major health outcomes that arise as a result of treatment requires large-scale randomized evidence (and the appropriate interpretation of this evidence once it has been generated). This may take the form of a single mega-trial or, exceptionally, a meta-analysis of many smaller randomized trials may provide worthwhile information. Small or non-randomized studies cannot generally be trusted to distinguish reliably between a moderate benefit, a moderate hazard, and a negligible difference in major outcomes. Simple design, streamlined data collection, and use of the "uncertainty principle' to guide eligibility would all encourage the recruitment of larger samples in randomized trials. Future trials need to adopt these methods in order to detect any moderate improvements in major outcomes that may await discovery.