Sex and racial disparities in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related cardiovascular events: National inpatient sample analysis (2019)

BACKGROUND Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease(NAFLD)increases cardiovascular disease(CVD)risk irrespective of other risk factors.However,large-scale cardiovascular sex and race differences are poorly understood.AIM To investigate the relationship between NAFLD and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events(MACCE)in subgroups using a nationally representative United States inpatient sample.METHODS We examined National Inpatient Sample(2019)to identify adult hospitalizations with NAFLD by age,sex,and race using ICD-10-CM codes.Clinical and demographic characteristics,comorbidities,and MACCE-related mortality,acute myocardial infarction(AMI),cardiac arrest,and stroke were compared in NAFLD cohorts by sex and race.Multivariable regression analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics,hospitalization features,and comorbidities.RESULTS We examined 409130 hospitalizations[median 55(IQR 43-66)years]with NFALD.NAFLD was more common in females(1.2%),Hispanics(2%),and Native Americans(1.9%)than whites.Females often reported non-elective admissions,Medicare enrolment,the median age of 55(IQR 42-67),and poor income.Females had higher obesity and uncomplicated diabetes but lower hypertension,hyperlipidemia,and complicated diabetes than males.Hispanics had a median age of 48(IQR 37-60),were Medicaid enrollees,and had non-elective admissions.Hispanics had greater diabetes and obesity rates than whites but lower hypertension and hyperlipidemia.MACCE,all-cause mortality,AMI,cardiac arrest,and stroke were all greater in elderly individuals(P<0.001).MACCE,AMI,and cardiac arrest were more common in men(P<0.001).Native Americans(aOR 1.64)and Asian Pacific Islanders(aOR 1.18)had higher all-cause death risks than whites.CONCLUSION Increasing age and male sex link NAFLD with adverse MACCE outcomes;Native Americans and Asian Pacific Islanders face higher mortality,highlighting a need for tailored interventions and care.

Control of modifiable risk factors and major adverse cardiovascular events in people with peripheral artery disease and diabetes

BACKGROUND People with diabetes and peripheral artery disease(PAD)have a high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events(MACE).Prior research suggests that medical therapies aimed to control modifiable risk factors are poorly implemented in patients with PAD.AIM To examine the association between the control of modifiable risk factors,estimated by the novel PAD-medical score,and the incidence of MACE in people with PAD and diabetes.METHODS Participants were recruited from out-patient clinics if they had a diagnosis of both PAD and diabetes.Control of reversible risk factors was assessed by a new composite measure,the PAD-medical score.This score takes into account the control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol,blood pressure,blood glucose,smoking and prescription of an anti-platelet.Participants were followed to record incidence of myocardial infarction,stroke and cardiovascular death(MACE).The association of PAD-medical score with MACE was assessed using Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusting for age,sex and prior history of ischemic heart disease and stroke.RESULTS Between 2002 and 2020,a total of 424 participants with carotid artery disease(n=63),aortic or peripheral aneurysm(n=121)or lower limb ischemia(n=240)were prospectively recruited,and followed for a median duration(inter-quartile range)of 2.0(0.2–4.4)years.Only 33(7.8%)participants had the optimal PAD-medical score of five,with 318(75%)scoring at least three out of five.There were 89(21.0%)participants that had at least one MACE during the follow-up period.A one-unit higher PAD-medical score was associated with lower risk of MACE(HR=0.79,95%CI:0.63-0.98)after adjusting for other risk factors.CONCLUSION The PAD-medical score provides a simple way to assess the control of modifiable risk factors targeted by medical management aimed to reduce the incidence of MACE.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride(a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin.Gliclazide(another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.AIM Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the cardiovascular(CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes(T2D).METHODS This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease(CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.RESULTS Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis(gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin(CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D(CAROLINA)trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials,they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out.However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.CONCLUSION Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Predictive value of HbA1c level for in-hospital acute coronary syndrome patients with diabetes

Background Diabetes mellitus （DM） is the major risk factor of coronary artery disease （CAD）, and the control status of blood sugar has direct effect on the prognosis of CAD. HbAlc is the important parameter reflect- ing control status of blood sugar, however, it is unclear about the value of in-hospital HbAlc in patients with a- cute coronary syndrome （ACS）. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for 236 in-hospital diabetic patients with ACS. Patients were stratified into two groups according to HbAlc level when admission （Well con- trolled group （HbAlc ~〈7.0%） and High HbAlc group （HbAlc 〉 7.0%）; major adverse cardiovascular events （MACE） group and Non-MACE group）. In-hospital MACE and mortality were set as the observation target. Results 282 patients （112 in Well controlled group and 170 in High HbAlc group） were enrolled, of which 146 （51.77%）, 63 （23.34%）, and 73 （25.89%） patients respectively had unstable angina （UA）, non-ST-seg- ment elevation myocardial infarction （NSTEM[）, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI）. In- hospital all-cause mortality and in-hospital MACE were both similar in Well controlled group and High HbAlc group （6.25% vs. 7.06% and 15.18% vs. 16.47%, P 〉 0.05）. In MACEs, cardiac death （4.46% vs. 5.29%）, recurrent myocardial infarction （2.68% vs. 2.94%）, hemorrhage events （5.35% vs. 5.29%）, malignant arrhyth- mia （6.25% vs. 5.29%）, cardiac shock （4.46% vs. 4.12%）, acute heart failure （8.93% vs. 10.0%）, revascu- larization （4.46% vs. 5.29%） were also all similar in both two groups. In addition, there were no significant dif- ference in HbAlc level between MACE group and Non-MACE group. Single-factor logistic regression analysis showed that HbAlc was not a risk factor for in-hospital MACE （P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion The present study suggests that admission HbAlc is not the risk factor of in-hospital MACE in ACS patients with diabetes.