Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies.

Background: Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified. Objectives: The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy. Design: The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials. Setting: The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017. Participants: Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome. Data sources: Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. Interventions: Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195). Conclusions: This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy. Limitations: The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted. Future work: Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People who have a heart attack are treated with a stent to open up the blocked artery that caused the heart attack, with surgery to bypass the blocked artery or with medication only. Whatever the treatment, they are prescribed one or more antiplatelet drugs, either aspirin only or aspirin and an additional antiplatelet (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor), for 12 months after the heart attack. Antiplatelets are given to prevent another heart attack, but increase the risk of bleeding. We used a large general practice database and a database describing patients' attendances and admissions to hospital to determine how many people bleed with different antiplatelet combinations. We found that, overall, up to 1 in 10 people taking antiplatelets (rising to 2 in 10 if also taking an anticoagulant such as warfarin or dabigatran) reported a bleed. Among patients treated with surgery or medication only, we compared aspirin only (which is a less potent therapy) with aspirin and clopidogrel (a more potent therapy). Among patients treated with stents, we compared aspirin and clopidogrel (less potent therapy) with aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor (more potent therapy). In all three populations, the more potent therapy increased the risk of bleeding by about one and a half times, but this was not offset by a reduced risk of having a subsequent heart attack. This may be explained by low adherence to the medication: between one-third and almost half of all patients did not adhere to their regimen, and non-adherence was generally higher among patients taking a more potent therapy. It may also be explained by bias inherent in the study, for example if the groups prescribed different antiplatelet regimens had different risks of having another heart attack. Nevertheless, the results show that doctors should be cautious about prescribing more potent antiplatelet therapy because it may increase serious bleeds without necessarily reducing the number of heart attacks.

Disparity in clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery between private and public (NHS) payers in England.

BACKGROUND: There is little known about how payer status impacts clinical outcomes in a universal single-payer system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between payer status (private or public) and clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery from NHS providers in England. METHODS: The National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA) registry was interrogated for patients who underwent adult cardiac surgery in England from 2009 to 2018. Information on socioeconomic status were provided by linkage with the Iteration of the English Indices of Deprivation (IoD). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of in-hospital postoperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA), renal dialysis, sternal wound infection, and re-exploration. To assess whether payer status was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were fitted along with 17 items forming the EuroSCORE and the IoD domains. FINDINGS: The final sample consisted of 280,209 patients who underwent surgery in 31 NHS hospitals in England from 2009 to 2018. Of them, 5,967 (2.1%) and 274,242 (97.9%) were private and NHS payers respectively. Private payer status was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.79; 95%CI 0.65 - 0.97;P = 0.026), CVA (OR 0.77; 95%CI 0.60 - 0.99; P = 0.039), need for re-exploration (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.72 - 0.97; P = 0.017) and with non-significant lower risk of dialysis (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.69 - 1.02; P = 0.074). Private payer status was found to be independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality in the elective subgroup (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61 - 0.96; P = 0.020) but not in the non-elective subgroup (OR 1.01; 95%CI 0.64 - 1.58; P = 0.976). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, using a national database, we have found evidence of significant beneficial effect of payer status on hospital outcomes following cardiac surgery in favour of private payers regardless their socioeconomic factors.

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of gabapentin versus placebo as an adjunct to multimodal pain regimens in surgical patients: protocol of a placebo controlled randomised controlled trial with blinding (GAP study).

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug currently licensed to treat epilepsy and neuropathic pain but has been used off-label to treat acute postoperative pain. The GAP study will compare the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of gabapentin as an adjunct to standard multimodal analgesia versus placebo for the management of pain after major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The GAP study is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18 years and over, undergoing different types of major surgery (cardiac, thoracic or abdominal). Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either gabapentin (600 mg just before surgery and 600 mg/day for 2 days after surgery) or placebo in addition to usual pain management for each type of surgery. Patients will be followed up daily until hospital discharge and then at 4 weeks and 4 months after surgery. The primary outcome is length of hospital stay following surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain, total opioid use, adverse health events, health related quality of life and costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee . Findings will be shared with participating hospitals and disseminated to the academic community through peer-reviewed publications and presentation at national and international meetings. Patients will be informed of the results through patient organisations and participant newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63614165.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in emergency patients with multivessel disease or unobstructed coronary arteries: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) when patients activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway. DESIGN: Economic decision models for two patient subgroups populated from secondary sources, each with a 1 year time horizon from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services in the UK. SETTING: Usual care (with or without CMR) in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who activated the PPCI pathway, and for Model 1: underwent an emergency coronary angiogram and PPCI, and were found to have multivessel coronary artery disease. For Model 2: underwent an emergency coronary angiogram and were found to have unobstructed coronary arteries. INTERVENTIONS: Model 1 (multivessel disease) compared two different ischaemia testing methods, CMR or fractional flow reserve (FFR), versus stress echocardiography. Model 2 (unobstructed arteries) compared CMR with standard echocardiography versus standard echocardiography alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key drivers of cost-effectiveness for CMR, incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In both models, the incremental costs and QALYs between CMR (or FFR, Model 1) versus no CMR (stress echocardiography, Model 1 and standard echocardiography, Model 2) were small (CMR: -£64 (95% CI -£232 to £187)/FFR: £360 (95% CI -£116 to £844) and CMR/FFR: 0.0012 QALYs (95% CI -0.0076 to 0.0093)) and (£98 (95% CI -£199 to £488) and 0.0005 QALYs (95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0077)), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the tests was the key driver of cost-effectiveness for both patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: If CMR were introduced for all subgroups of patients who activate the PPCI pathway, it is likely that diagnostic accuracy would be a key determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to definitively answer whether revascularisation guided by CMR or FFR leads to different clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease.

Health-related quality of life impact of minor and major bleeding events during dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic literature review and patient preference elicitation study.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the recommended preventative treatment for secondary ischaemic events, but increases the risk of bleeding, potentially affecting patients' health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Varied utility decrements have been used in cost-effectiveness models assessing alternative DAPT regimens, but it is unclear which of these decrements are most appropriate. Therefore, we reviewed existing sources of utility decrements for bleeds in patients receiving DAPT and undertook primary research to estimate utility decrements through a patient elicitation exercise using vignettes and the EuroQol EQ-5D. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed and references of included studies were searched. Primary research and decision analytic modelling studies reporting utility decrements for bleeds related to DAPT were considered. For the primary research study, 21 participants completed an elicitation exercise involving vignettes describing minor and major bleeds and the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L. Utility decrements were derived using linear regression and compared to existing estimates. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-two citations were screened, of which 12 studies were included for review. Reported utility decrements ranged from - 0.002 to - 0.03 for minor bleeds and - 0.007 to - 0.05 for major bleeds. Data sources used to estimate the decrements, however, lacked relevance to our population group and few studies adequately reported details of their measurement and valuation approaches. No study completely adhered to reimbursement agency requirements in the UK according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. Our primary research elicited utility decrements overlapped existing estimates, ranging from - 0.000848 to - 0.00828 for minor bleeds and - 0.0187 to - 0.0621 for major bleeds. However, the magnitude of difference depended on the instrument, estimation method and valuation approach applied. CONCLUSIONS: Several sources of utility decrements for bleeds are available for use in cost-effectiveness analyses, but are of limited quality and relevance. Our elicitation exercise has derived utility decrements from a relevant patient population, based on standardised definitions of minor and major bleeding events, using a validated HRQoL instrument and have been valued using general population tariffs. We suggest that our utility decrements be used in future cost-effectiveness analyses of DAPT.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of serum B-type natriuretic peptide testing and monitoring in patients with heart failure in primary and secondary care: an evidence synthesis, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) affects around 500,000 people in the UK. HF medications are frequently underprescribed and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)-guided therapy may help to optimise treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy in HF patients. DESIGN: Systematic review, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model. SETTING: A literature review and usual care in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: (a) HF patients in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BNP-guided therapy; and (b) patients having usual care for HF in the NHS. INTERVENTIONS: Systematic review: BNP-guided therapy or symptom-guided therapy in primary or secondary care. Cohort study: BNP monitored (≥ 6 months' follow-up and three or more BNP tests and two or more tests per year), BNP tested (≥ 1 tests but not BNP monitored) or never tested. Cost-effectiveness model: BNP-guided therapy in specialist clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, hospital admission (all cause and HF related) and adverse events; and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review: Individual participant or aggregate data from eligible RCTs. Cohort study: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature search (five databases, trial registries, grey literature and reference lists of publications) for published and unpublished RCTs. RESULTS: Five RCTs contributed individual participant data (IPD) and eight RCTs contributed aggregate data (1536 participants were randomised to BNP-guided therapy and 1538 participants were randomised to symptom-guided therapy). For all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio (HR) for BNP-guided therapy was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04]. Patients who were aged < 75 years or who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) received the most benefit [interactions (p = 0.03): < 75 years vs. ≥ 75 years: HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92) vs. 1.07 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.37); HFrEF vs. heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01) vs. 1.33 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.11)]. In the cohort study, incident HF patients (1 April 2005-31 March 2013) were never tested (n = 13,632), BNP tested (n = 3392) or BNP monitored (n = 71). Median survival was 5 years; all-cause mortality was 141.5 out of 1000 person-years (95% CI 138.5 to 144.6 person-years). All-cause mortality and hospital admission rate were highest in the BNP-monitored group, and median survival among 130,433 NHFA patients (1 January 2007-1 March 2013) was 2.2 years. The admission rate was 1.1 patients per year (interquartile range 0.5-3.5 patients). In the cost-effectiveness model, in patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF or HFpEF, BNP-guided therapy improves median survival (7.98 vs. 6.46 years) with a small QALY gain (5.68 vs. 5.02) but higher lifetime costs (£64,777 vs. £58,139). BNP-guided therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the trial were a lack of IPD for most RCTs and heterogeneous interventions; the inability to identify BNP monitoring confidently, to determine medication doses or to distinguish between HFrEF and HFpEF; the use of a simplified two-state Markov model; a focus on health service costs and a paucity of data on HFpEF patients aged < 75 years and HFrEF patients aged ≥ 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of BNP-guided therapy in specialist HF clinics is uncertain. If efficacious, it would be cost-effective for patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF. The evidence reviewed may not apply in the UK because care is delivered differently. FUTURE WORK: Identify an optimal BNP-monitoring strategy and how to optimise HF management in accordance with guidelines; update the IPD meta-analysis to include the Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) RCT; collect routine long-term outcome data for completed and ongoing RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37248047 and PROSPERO CRD42013005335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The British Heart Foundation paid for Chris A Rogers' and Maria Pufulete's time contributing to the study. Syed Mohiuddin's time is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Rachel Maishman contributed to the study when she was in receipt of a NIHR Methodology Research Fellowship.

Formal consensus to identify clinically important changes in management resulting from the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients who activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To define important changes in management arising from the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients who activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway. DESIGN: Formal consensus study using literature review and cardiologist expert opinion to formulate consensus statements and setting up a consensus panel to review the statements (by completing a web-based survey, attending a face-to-face meeting to discuss survey results and modify the survey to reflect group discussion and completing the modified survey to determine which statements were in consensus). PARTICIPANTS: Formulation of consensus statements: four cardiologists (two CMR and two interventional) and six non-clinical researchers. Formal consensus: seven cardiologists (two CMR and three interventional, one echocardiography and one heart failure). Forty-nine additional cardiologists completed the modified survey. RESULTS: Thirty-seven draft statements describing changes in management following CMR were generated; these were condensed into 12 statements and reviewed through the formal consensus process. Three of 12 statements were classified in consensus in the first survey; these related to the role of CMR in identifying the cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, providing a definitive diagnosis in patients found to have unobstructed arteries on angiography and identifying patients with left ventricular thrombus. Two additional statements were in consensus in the modified survey, relating to the ability of CMR to identify patients who have a poor prognosis after PPCI and assess ischaemia and viability in patients with multivessel disease. CONCLUSION: There was consensus that CMR leads to clinically important changes in management in five subgroups of patients who activate the PPCI pathway.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: Monitoring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to guide pharmacotherapy might improve survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is uncertain and guidelines do not uniformly recommend it. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patient subgroups defined by age and ejection fraction. METHODS: We used a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length to estimate the lifetime health service costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefits (iNMBs) of BNP-guided versus clinically guided care in 3 patient subgroups: (1) HFrEF patients <75 years; (2) HFpEF patients <75 years; and (3) HFrEF patients ≥75 years. There is no evidence of benefit in patients with HFpEF aged ≥75 years. We used individual patient data meta-analyses and linked primary care, hospital and mortality data to inform the key model parameters. We performed probabilistic analysis to assess the uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: In younger patients (<75 years) with HFrEF, the mean QALYs (5.57 vs 5.02) and costs (£63 527 vs £58 139) were higher with BNP-guided care. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the positive iNMB (£5424 (95% CI £987 to £9469)) indicates that BNP-guided care is cost-effective in this subgroup. The evidence of cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is less strong for younger patients with HFpEF (£3155 (-£10 307 to £11 613)) and older patients (≥75 years) with HFrEF (£2267 (-£1524 to £6074)). BNP-guided care remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses, albeit the results were sensitive to assumptions on its sustained effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence that BNP-guided care is a cost-effective alternative to clinically guided care in younger patients with HFrEF. It is potentially cost-effective in younger patients with HFpEF and older patients with HFrEF, but more evidence is required, particularly with respect to the frequency, duration and BNP target for monitoring. Cost-effectiveness results from trials in specialist settings cannot be generalised to primary care.

The healthcare costs of heart failure during the last five years of life: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the economic impact of heart failure (HF) is vital in order to predict the cost-effectiveness of novel interventions. We estimate the health system costs of HF during the last five years of life. METHODS: We used linked primary care and mortality data accessed through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify 1555 adults in England who died with HF in 2012/13. We used CPRD and linked Hospital Episode Statistics to estimate the cost of medications, primary and hospital healthcare. Using GLS regression we estimated the relationship between costs, HF diagnosis, proximity to death and patient characteristics. RESULTS: In the last 3months of life, healthcare costs were £8827 (95% CI £8357 to £9296) per patient, more than 90% of which were for inpatient or critical care. In the last 3months, patients spent on average 17.8 (95% CI 16.8 to 18.8) days in hospital and had 8.8 (95% CI 8.4 to 9.1) primary care consultations. Most (931/1555; 59.9%) patients were in hospital on the day of death. Mean quarterly healthcare costs in quarters after HF diagnosis were higher (£1439; [95% CI £1260 to £1619]) than in quarters preceding diagnosis. Older patients and patients with lower comorbidity scores had lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs increase sharply at the end of life and are dominated by hospital care. There is potential to save money by implementation and evaluation of interventions that are known to reduce hospitalisations for HF, particularly at the end of life.

Folate status of Ghanaian populations in London and Accra.

Migration to the UK is associated with higher incidence of stroke in African populations. A low folate status has been associated with increased risk of stroke, likely to be mediated through raised plasma homocysteine concentrations. We conducted a cross-sectional study to compare blood folate and homocysteine concentrations in eighty healthy Ghanaian migrants living in London matched by sex, age and occupation to 160 individuals from an urban population in Accra, Ghana. Folate intake was determined using three 24 h recalls. Fasting blood samples were collected for the determination of serum and erythrocyte folate and plasma homocysteine concentrations and the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) 677C --> T polymorphism. Reported mean folate intake was 20 % lower in London compared with Accra (P < 0.001). However, serum folate was 44 % higher, erythrocyte folate 30 % higher and plasma homocysteine was 26 % lower in subjects from London compared with those from Accra (P < 0.001). These differences persisted after adjusting for confounders including the MTHFR 677C --> T mutation, which was rare in both populations. Although there were no associations between dietary folate intake and blood folates (P>0.05), folic acid supplement use, which was more prevalent in London than Accra (25 and 10 %, respectively, P = 0.004) was associated with erythrocyte folate in both populations (P < 0.01). The main predictors of plasma homocysteine concentrations were erythrocyte folate and male sex (P < 0.001). Findings from the present study suggest that migration from Ghana to the UK results in improvement of biomarkers of folate status despite the fact that reported dietary intake of folate was apparently lower in subjects from London.