Risk factors associated with biochemically detected and hospitalised acute kidney injury in patients prescribed renin angiotensin system inhibitors.

AIMS: Therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is a mainstay of treatment for heart failure (HF), diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). These agents have been associated with development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during intercurrent illness. Risk factors for AKI in patients prescribed ACEi/ARB therapy are not well described. METHODS: We captured the incidence of AKI in patients commencing ACEi/ARB during 2009-2015 using anonymised patient records. Hospital-coded AKI was defined from hospital episode statistics; biochemical AKI was ascertained from laboratory data. Risk factors for biochemically detected and hospitalised AKI were investigated. RESULTS: Of 61,318 patients prescribed ACEi/ARB, with 132 885 person years (py) follow-up, there were 1070 hospitalisations with AKI as a diagnosis recorded and a total of 4645 AKI events, including AKI episodes indicated by biochemical KDIGO-based creatinine change criteria. Incidence of any AKI event was 35.0 per 1000-py, hospital-coded AKI was 7.8 per 1000-py and biochemical AKI was 33.7 per 1000-py. Independent risk factors in a multivariable model for hospital-coded AKI events were age, male gender, HF, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, socioeconomic deprivation, diuretic or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients prescribed ACEi/ARB, the highest risk of AKI is associated with conditions which are considered strong evidence-based indications for their prescription. Socio-economic status is an under-reported risk factor for AKI with these agents. Strategies targeted at prevention of AKI may be of benefit, such as enhanced awareness based on higher risk comorbidities.

Comparing uptake across breast, cervical and bowel screening at an individual level: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated demographic and clinical predictors of lower participation in bowel screening relative to breast and cervical screening. METHODS: Data linkage study of routinely collected clinical data from 430,591 women registered with general practices in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board. Participation in the screening programmes was measured by attendance at breast or cervical screening or the return of a bowel screening kit. RESULTS: 72.6% of 159,993 women invited attended breast screening, 80.7% of 309,899 women invited attended cervical screening and 61.7% of 180,408 women invited completed bowel screening. Of the 68,324 women invited to participate in all three screening programmes during the study period, 52.1% participated in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Women who participated in breast (OR = 3.34 (3.21, 3.47), p < 0.001) or cervical (OR = 3.48 (3.32, 3.65), p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in bowel screening. CONCLUSION: Participation in bowel screening was lower than breast or cervical for this population although the same demographic factors were associated with uptake, namely lower social deprivation, increasing age, low levels of comorbidity and prior non-malignant neoplasms. As women who complete breast and cervical are more likely to also complete bowel screening, interventions at these procedures to encourage bowel screening participation should be explored.

Healthcare disparities for women hospitalized with myocardial infarction and angina.

AIMS: Ischaemic heart disease persists as the leading cause of death in both men and women in most countries and sex disparities, defined as differences in health outcomes and their determinants, may be relevant. We examined sex disparities in presenting characteristics, treatment and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI) or angina. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cohort study of all patients admitted with MI or angina (01 October 2013 to 30 June 2016) from a secondary care acute coronary syndrome e-Registry in NHS Scotland linked with national registers of community drug dispensation and mortality data. A total of 7878 patients hospitalized for MI or angina were prospectively included; 3161 (40%) were women. Women were older, more deprived, had a greater burden of comorbidity, were more often treated with guideline-recommended therapy preadmission and less frequently received immediate invasive management. Men were more likely to receive coronary angiography [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.52, confidence interval (CI) 1.37-1.68] and percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted OR 1.68, CI 1.52-1.86). Women were less comprehensively treated with evidence-based therapies post-MI. Women had worse crude survival, primarily those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (14.3% vs. 8.0% at 1 year, P < 0.001), but this finding was explained by differences in baseline factors. Men with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction had a higher risk of all-cause death at 30 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.72, CI 1.16-2.56] and 1 year (adjusted HR 1.38, CI 1.12-1.69). CONCLUSION: After taking account of baseline risk factors, sex differences in treatment pathway, use of invasive management, and secondary prevention therapies indicate disparities in guideline-directed management of women hospitalized with MI or angina.

Statin Use is Not Associated with Future Long-Term Care Admission: Extended Follow-Up of Two Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Statins have been associated with later life, long-term care admission in observational studies. However, by preventing vascular events, statins may also prevent or delay admission. We wished to determine statin and long-term care admission associations in a randomised controlled trial context, and describe associations between long-term care admission and other clinical and demographic factors. METHODS: We used extended follow-up of two randomised trial populations, using national data to assign the long-term care admission outcome, and included individuals screened or recruited to two large randomised trials of pravastatin 40 mg daily-the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) and the pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER) study. We described univariable and multivariable analyses of potential predictors of long-term care admission with corresponding survival curves of incident long-term care admission and analyses adjusted for competing risk. RESULTS: In total 11,015 (10%) of the trial participants were admitted to long-term care. There was no difference between participants in the statin or placebo arms of either trial in regard to admissions to long-term care. On multivariable analyses, independent associations with incident long-term care admission in the PROSPER trial were age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06 per year, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09) and male sex (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.99). In the WOSCOPS, age (HR 1.12 per year, 95% CI 1.10-1.13) and increasing social deprivation (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) were associated with incident long-term care admission. CONCLUSION: We did not demonstrate an association between historical statin use and future long-term care admission. The strongest associations with incident long-term care admission were non-modifiable factors of age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation.

Non-invasive versus invasive management in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery with a non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: study design of the pilot randomised controlled trial and registry (CABG-ACS).

INTRODUCTION: There is an evidence gap about how to best treat patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs) presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) because historically, these patients were excluded from pivotal randomised trials. We aim to undertake a pilot trial of routine non-invasive management versus routine invasive management in patients with NSTE-ACS with prior CABG and optimal medical therapy during routine clinical care. Our trial is a proof-of-concept study for feasibility, safety, potential efficacy and health economic modelling. We hypothesise that a routine invasive approach in patients with NSTE-ACS with prior CABG is not superior to a non-invasive approach with optimal medical therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 60 patients will be enrolled in a randomised clinical trial in 4 hospitals. A screening log will be prospectively completed. Patients not randomised due to lack of eligibility criteria and/or patient or physician preference and who give consent will be included in a registry. We will gather information about screening, enrolment, eligibility, randomisation, patient characteristics and adverse events (including post-discharge). The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalisation for refractory ischaemia/angina, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation for heart failure. The primary safety outcome is the composite of bleeding, stroke, procedure-related myocardial infarction and worsening renal function. Health status will be assessed using EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) assessed at baseline and 6 monthly intervals, for at least 18 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01895751 (ClinicalTrials.gov).