Chalmers J.,University of Sydney |
Fox C.,Center for Population Studies Framingham |
Jafar T.,National University of Singapore |
Jassal S.K.,University of California at San Diego |
And 120 more authors.
The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology | Year: 2015
Background: The usefulness of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria for prediction of cardiovascular outcomes is controversial. We aimed to assess the addition of creatinine-based eGFR and albuminuria to traditional risk factors for prediction of cardiovascular risk with a meta-analytic approach. Methods: We meta-analysed individual-level data for 637 315 individuals without a history of cardiovascular disease from 24 cohorts (median follow-up 4·2-19·0 years) included in the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. We assessed C statistic difference and reclassification improvement for cardiovascular mortality and fatal and non-fatal cases of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure in a 5 year timeframe, contrasting prediction models for traditional risk factors with and without creatinine-based eGFR, albuminuria (either albumin-to-creatinine ratio [ACR] or semi-quantitative dipstick proteinuria), or both. Findings: The addition of eGFR and ACR significantly improved the discrimination of cardiovascular outcomes beyond traditional risk factors in general populations, but the improvement was greater with ACR than with eGFR, and more evident for cardiovascular mortality (C statistic difference 0·0139 [95% CI 0·0105-0·0174] for ACR and 0·0065 [0·0042-0·0088] for eGFR) and heart failure (0·0196 [0·0108-0·0284] and 0·0109 [0·0059-0·0159]) than for coronary disease (0·0048 [0·0029-0·0067] and 0·0036 [0·0019-0·0054]) and stroke (0·0105 [0·0058-0·0151] and 0·0036 [0·0004-0·0069]). Dipstick proteinuria showed smaller improvement than ACR. The discrimination improvement with eGFR or ACR was especially evident in individuals with diabetes or hypertension, but remained significant with ACR for cardiovascular mortality and heart failure in those without either of these disorders. In individuals with chronic kidney disease, the combination of eGFR and ACR for risk discrimination outperformed most single traditional predictors; the C statistic for cardiovascular mortality fell by 0·0227 (0·0158-0·0296) after omission of eGFR and ACR compared with less than 0·007 for any single modifiable traditional predictor. Interpretation: Creatinine-based eGFR and albuminuria should be taken into account for cardiovascular prediction, especially when these measures are already assessed for clinical purpose or if cardiovascular mortality and heart failure are outcomes of interest. ACR could have particularly broad implications for cardiovascular prediction. In populations with chronic kidney disease, the simultaneous assessment of eGFR and ACR could facilitate improved classification of cardiovascular risk, supporting current guidelines for chronic kidney disease. Our results lend some support to also incorporating eGFR and ACR into assessments of cardiovascular risk in the general population. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Source
Landman G.W.D.,Diabetes Center Zwolle |
De Bock G.H.,University of Groningen |
Van Hateren K.J.J.,Diabetes Center Zwolle |
Van Dijk P.R.,Diabetes Center Zwolle |
And 6 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2014
Objective and Design: Gliclazide has been associated with a low risk of hypoglycemic episodes and beneficial long-term cardiovascular safety in observational cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials the safety and efficacy of gliclazide compared to other oral glucose-lowering agents (PROSPERO2013:CRD42013004156) Data Sources: Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Trialregister.nl, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu and the Cochrane database. Selection: Included were randomized studies of at least 12 weeks duration with the following outcomes: HbA1c change, incidence of severe hypoglycemia, weight change, cardiovascular events and/or mortality when comparing gliclazide with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The inverse variance random effects model was used. Results: Nineteen trials were included; 3,083 patients treated with gliclazide and 3,155 patients treated with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. There was a considerable amount of heterogeneity between and bias in studies. Compared to other glucose lowering agents except metformin, gliclazide was slightly more effective (-0.13% (95%CI: -0.25, -0.02, I2 55%)). One out of 2,387 gliclazide users experienced a severe hypoglycemic event, whilst also using insulin. There were 25 confirmed non-severe hypoglycemic events (2.2%) in 1,152 gliclazide users and 22 events (1.8%) in 1,163 patients in the comparator group (risk ratio 1.09 (95% CI: 0.20, 5.78, I2 77%)). Few studies reported differences in weight and none were designed to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions: The methodological quality of randomized trials comparing gliclazide to other oral glucose lowering agents was poor and effect estimates on weight were limited by publication bias. The number of severe hypoglycemic episodes was extremely low, and gliclazide appears at least equally effective compared to other glucose lowering agents. None of the trials were designed for evaluating cardiovascular outcomes, which warrants attention in future randomized trials. © 2014 Landman et al. Source