Residual cardiovascular risk reduction guided by lifetime benefit estimation in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

AIMS: To determine the (cost)-effectiveness of blood pressure lowering, lipid-lowering, and antithrombotic therapy guided by predicted lifetime benefit compared to risk factor levels in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: For all patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease in the UCC-SMART cohort (1996-2018; n = 7697) two treatment strategies were compared. The lifetime benefit-guided strategy was based on individual estimation of gain in cardiovascular disease (CVD)-free life with the SMART-REACH model. In the risk factor-based strategy, all patients were treated the following: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) < 1.8 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, and antithrombotic medication. Outcomes were evaluated for the total cohort using a microsimulation model. Effectiveness was evaluated as total gain in CVD-free life and events avoided, cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectivity ratio (ICER). In comparison to baseline treatment, treatment according to lifetime benefit would lead to an increase of 24 243 CVD-free life years [95% confidence interval (CI) 19 980-29 909] and would avoid 940 (95% CI 742-1140) events in the next 10 years. For risk-factor based treatment, this would be an increase of 18 564 CVD-free life years (95% CI 14 225-20 456) and decrease of 857 (95% CI 661-1057) events. The ICER of lifetime benefit-based treatment with a treatment threshold of ≥1 year additional CVD-free life per therapy was €15 092/QALY gained and of risk factor-based treatment €9933/QALY gained. In a direct comparison, lifetime benefit-based treatment compared to risk factor-based treatment results in 1871 additional QALYs for the price of €36 538/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Residual risk reduction guided by lifetime benefit estimation results in more CVD-free life years and more CVD events avoided compared to the conventional risk factor-based strategy. Lifetime benefit-based treatment is an effective and potentially cost-effective strategy for reducing residual CVD risk in patients with clinical manifest vascular disease.

The association between chronic kidney disease, falls, and fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are more likely to experience falls and fractures due to renal osteodystrophy and the high prevalence of risk factors for falls. However, it is not well established how great the risk is for falls and fractures for the different stages of CKD compared to the general population. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether, and in which degree, CKD was associated with falls and fractures in adults. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library was performed on 7 September 2018. All retrospective, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies of adults (18 years of older) that studied the association between CKD, fractures, and falls were included. Additional studies were identified by cross-referencing. A total of 39 publications were included, of which two publications assessed three types of outcome and four publications assessed two types of outcome. Ten studies focused on accidental falling; seventeen studies focused on hip, femur, and pelvis fractures; seven studies focused on vertebral fractures; and thirteen studies focused on any type of fracture without further specification. Generally, the risk of fractures increased when kidney function worsened, with the highest risks in the patients with stage 5 CKD or dialysis. This effect was most pronounced for hip fractures and any type of fractures. Furthermore, results on the association between CKD and accidental falling were contradictory. Compared to the general population, fractures are highly prevalent in patients with CKD. Besides more awareness of timely fracture risk assessment, there also should be more focus on fall prevention.

Quality of life after the initiation of dialysis or maximal conservative management in elderly patients: a longitudinal analysis of the Geriatric assessment in OLder patients starting Dialysis (GOLD) study.

BACKGROUND: Maximal conservative management (MCM) may be an appropriate alternative option for dialysis in some elderly patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Evidence about the impact of dialysis or MCM on quality of life (QoL) in older patients is sparse. In the GOLD (Geriatric assessment in OLder patients starting Dialysis) Study the trajectory of QoL was assessed in patients starting dialysis or MCM. METHODS: Patients ≥65 years old were included just prior to dialysis initiation or after decision for MCM. Baseline data included demographics, frailty as measured with a geriatric assessment, comorbidity (CIRS-G) and QoL, measured with the EQ-5D-3 L (EQ-5D Index and overall self-rated health). Six months follow-up data included QoL, hospitalizations and mortality. Change of QoL was assed with paired t-tests. Cox-regression was used to assess survival of MCM and dialysis patients. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 192 dialysis and 89 MCM patients. The MCM patients were older (mean age 82 ± 6 vs. 75 ± 7 years, p <  0.01) and mean kidney function was better (eGFR 11.5 ± 4.0 vs. 8.0 ± 2.9 ml/min/1.73m2, p <  0.01). Baseline QoL did not differ significantly between the groups. After six months, EQ-5D Index did not improve significantly in the dialysis group with mean ± standard error (SE) 0.026 ± 0.014 (p = 0.10; not clinically relevant), but a small but clinically relevant decline was seen in the conservative group: 0.047 ± 0.022 (p < 0.01; between group difference p < 0.01). Hospitalization occurred in 50% of dialysis patients vs. 24% of conservative patients (p < 0.01). In patients over 80 years old, no survival benefit could be found for dialysis patients starting dialysis vs. MCM. CONCLUSION: A small decline of QoL was found for conservative patients, while QoL did not change in dialysis patients. However, hospitalization rate was higher in patients starting dialysis. In patients over 80 years, no survival benefit was found.