Prevalence and risk factors of peripheral artery disease in a population with chronic kidney disease in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is a lack of clarity and guidance for screening peripheral artery disease (PAD) in persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage kidney disease (ESKD) despite this group being at excess risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this current study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence and risk factors for PAD in persons with CKD in Australian cohorts. We used the inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis with double arcsine transformation to summarize the prevalence of PAD (with 95% CIs). Nine studies and 18 reports from the Australia and New Zealand dialysis and transplant registry with 36 cohorts were included in the review. We found a substantially higher PAD prevalence in cohorts based on an ankle-brachial index (ABI) or toe systolic pressure (TBI) than cohorts based on self-reported history. Higher PAD prevalence was observed in ESKD persons than CKD persons without dialysis (PAD diagnosis based on ABI or TBI: 31% in ESKD persons and 23% in CKD persons, PAD diagnosis based on self-reported history: 17% in ESKD persons and 10% in CKD persons). Older age, Caucasian race, cerebrovascular disease and haemodialysis were associated with the presence of PAD in ESKD persons. Our findings indicated a considerable proportion of PAD in CKD and ESKD persons particularly in those with ESKD. To develop and provide an adequate plan to clinically manage CKD patients with PAD, evidence of cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of early detection of PAD in persons with CKD in Australia is recommended for future studies.

The effect of taking blood pressure lowering medication at night on cardiovascular disease risk. A systematic review.

To investigate the effect of night-time BP-lowering drug treatment on the risk of major CVD and mortality, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing night-time versus morning dosing. Two studies were found relevant to the clinical question (the MAPEC and Hygia trials). They were similar in study design and population and were conducted by the same study group. As the Hygia trial had more power with a significantly larger sample size, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Both studies reported a reduction of ~50% in major CVD events and all-cause mortality with night-time dosing and a reduction of 60% in CVD mortality. The results from these studies support the implementation of night-time BP-lowering drug treatment in the prevention of CVD and mortality. However there is an on-going discussion on the validity and methodology of MAPEC and Hygia trials, the interpretation of the results should be cautious. Stronger evidence is needed prior to changing clinical practice. Questions that remain to be answered relate to the generalisability of the results across different populations at different levels of BP related risk and the importance of morning versus evening timing of medication on CVD prevention as determined though a well-designed randomised controlled trial.

Legacy effect of delayed blood pressure lowering drug treatment in middle-aged adults with mildly elevated blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis.

To investigate if there is evidence for a 'legacy effect' for blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment, that is, worse health outcomes from not initiating drug treatment at a systolic BP threshold of 140 mmHg in middle-age adults. We systematically reviewed studies comparing the effects of delayed BP treatment (placebo/untreated during the trial or no previous treatment at trial entry) vs. early treatment (actively treated during the trial or previous BP treatment at trial entry) on mortality in the short term (5-year in-trial period) and long term (≥10 years in total period). The data were pooled using Peto ORs. A subgroup analysis by 10-year Framingham risk score was performed. Three studies (ALLHAT, Oslo and PREVEND-IT) involving 4746 participants were included. The results were heavily influenced by the ALLHAT trial. We found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between 'delayed BP' and 'early treatment' in the short-term OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.68-1.32) or long-term OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.78-1.04), with similar results for mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). The effects of delayed BP lowering treatment on long-term all-cause and CVD mortality did not vary with baseline risk of CVD. The review showed no clinically adverse 'legacy effect' on mortality or major CVD event from not treating middle-aged adults at a systolic BP threshold of 140 mmHg or over. The results were consistent for all CVD risk subgroups. Although these studies are non-randomised post-hoc analyses, they may allay concerns that early treatment of elevated systolic BP is necessary to prevent CVD events in primary prevention populations.

Lack of a significant legacy effect of baseline blood pressure 'treatment naivety' on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate legacy effects at 14-year follow-up of all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in 'treatment-naive' or 'previous treatment' groups based on blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment status at baseline. METHODS: A post-hoc observational study of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. We excluded participants with a previous history of CVD events. Cox proportional hazard model and 95% confidence interval were used to estimate the effects of treatment naive on mortality outcomes. Moreover, a subgroup analysis by estimated 10-year Framingham risk score was performed. RESULTS: In multivariable models adjusting for baseline and in-trial characteristics (BP values and number of BP medications as time-dependent variables), there was no statistically significant difference in 5 and 14-year all-cause mortality with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.09) and hazard ratio 0.95 (0.88-1.03) and in 5 and 14-year CVD mortality hazard ratio 0.94 (0.72-1.23) and hazard ratio 0.93 (0.80-1.08). In subgroup by absolute CVD risk, no heterogeneity of the association between treatment naive and short-term or long-term all-cause or CVD mortality were found. All comparisons are between the treatment-naive and previous treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Physicians are concerned about 'legacy effects' of not treating individuals with a BP of 140 mmHg or over and low absolute risk. When treatment intensification was taken into consideration in the primary prevention population in this study, no adverse legacy effect as a result of baseline BP 'treatment naivety' was evident in 14 years of follow-up. The nonsignificant associations were consistent across the CVD risk subgroups. However, the results may be biased due to unobserved residual confounding and therefore should be interpreted with caution.

Short- and long-term association of lipid-lowering drug treatment and cardiovascular disease by estimated absolute risk in the Second Australian National Blood Pressure study.

BACKGROUND: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of lipid-lowering drug treatment (LLT) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the elderly. OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationship of early initiation of LLT with short- and long-term all-cause and CVD mortality in persons older than 65 years in this post hoc study from the Second Australian National Blood Pressure study (ANBP2). METHODS: This was an in- and post-trial observational study. About 4257 hypertensive participants aged 65 to 84 years within Australian family practices were randomized to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a diuretic treatment group. After excluding participants with a prior history of CVD, the cohort was stratified into "LLT" and "no LLT" subgroups based on LLT status at randomization. RESULTS: At randomization, the participants had a mean age of 72 years, average blood pressure of 168/91 mm Hg and estimated 5-year CVD risk of 18.7 ± 8.3%. In the overall study population, the association of LLT with long-term (11-years) all-cause and non-CVD mortality was significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.66-0.92, P = .003] and HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.54-0.90, P = .006], respectively). Magnitudes of the association of LLT with long-term mortality and the association with short-term mortality were similar; however, no statistically significant association with short-term mortality was observed. In the subgroup analysis by baseline 5-year CVD risk, LLT participants in the highest risk tertile had a substantially lower relative risk for short-term all-cause mortality (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.71, P for interaction .02) compared to those with lower estimated CVD risk. All analyses were adjusted for baseline and in-trial characteristics. CONCLUSION: Our study showed a strong association between LLT and reduced long-term all-cause mortality. Thus, our findings support recommendations of the use of LLT in patients over 65 years, particularly those with high CVD risk who were more likely to obtain additional benefits in the short term. The findings also suggested that mortality benefits of LLT for the elderly may take longer to become evident.