OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of nuts with mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
METHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study is a large multinational prospective cohort study of adults aged 35-70 y from 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries on 5 continents. Nut intake (tree nuts and ground nuts) was measured at the baseline visit, using country-specific validated FFQs. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality or major cardiovascular event [nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or heart failure].
RESULTS: We followed 124,329 participants (age = 50.7 y, SD = 10.2; 41.5% male) for a median of 9.5 y. We recorded 10,928 composite events [deaths (n = 8,662) or major cardiovascular events (n = 5,979)]. Higher nut intake (>120 g per wk compared with <30 g per mo) was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome of mortality or major cardiovascular event [multivariate HR (mvHR): 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96; P-trend = 0.0048]. Significant reductions in total (mvHR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.87; P-trend <0.0001), cardiovascular (mvHR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.92; P-trend = 0.048), and noncardiovascular mortality (mvHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.96; P-trend = 0.0046) with a trend to reduced cancer mortality (mvHR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.65, 1.00; P-trend = 0.081) were observed. No significant associations of nuts were seen with major CVD (mvHR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14), stroke (mvHR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.14; P-trend = 0.76), or MI (mvHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.04; P-trend = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: Higher nut intake was associated with lower mortality risk from both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.
OBJECTIVES: The DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY)-Asia study is one of nine independently powered studies assessing the efficacy of starting doses of statins in achieving target lipid levels in different countries worldwide. DISCOVERY-Asia was a 12-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study conducted in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.
RESULTS: A total of 1482 adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk (> 20%/10 years, type 2 diabetes, or a history of coronary heart disease) were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily (o.d.) or atorvastatin 10 mg o.d. The percentage of patients achieving the 1998 European Joint Task Force low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of < 3.0 mmol/L at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin group (n = 950) compared with the atorvastatin group (n = 471) (79.5 vs. 69.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for 1998 European goals for total cholesterol (TC), and the 2003 European goals for LDL-C and TC. LDL-C and TC levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin. Both drugs were well-tolerated and the incidence and type of adverse events were similar in each group.
TRIALS REGISTRATION: The trial registry summary is available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241488
CONCLUSIONS: This 12-week study showed that the starting dose of rosuvastatin 10 mg o.d. was significantly more effective than the starting dose of natorvastatin 10 mg o.d. at enabling patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia to achieve European goals for LDL-C and TC in a largely Asian population in real-life clinical practice. The safety profile of rosuvastatin 10 mg is similar to that of atorvastatin 10 mg in the Asian population studied here, and is consistent with the known safety profile of rosuvastatin in the white population.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study involved eighty-three (n=83) adults attending a health screening program at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Demographic data, anthropometric measurements and blood samples for fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting lipid profile (FSL), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and hsCRP were taken. Respondents were grouped according to FRS and the Joint Interim Statement into 10-year CVD risk categories (low, intermediate and high) and MetS, respectively.
RESULTS: hsCRP was significantly increased in patients with high body mass index (BMI) (p=0.001), at-risk waist circumference (WC) (p=0.001) and MetS (p=0.009). Spearman's correlation coefficient showed a significant positive correlation between hsCRP level and total FRS score (r=0.26, p<0.05) and HDL-C score (r=0.22, p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The significant difference of hsCRP levels across obesity levels and MetS with its modest correlation with FRS scores supported the adjunctive role of hsCRP in CVD risk prediction, most likely capturing the inflammatory pathological aspect and thus partly accounting for the residual CVD risk.
METHODS: In this multinational, prospective cohort study, we examined associations for 14 potentially modifiable risk factors with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 155 722 participants without a prior history of cardiovascular disease from 21 high-income, middle-income, or low-income countries (HICs, MICs, or LICs). The primary outcomes for this paper were composites of cardiovascular disease events (defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) and mortality. We describe the prevalence, hazard ratios (HRs), and population-attributable fractions (PAFs) for cardiovascular disease and mortality associated with a cluster of behavioural factors (ie, tobacco use, alcohol, diet, physical activity, and sodium intake), metabolic factors (ie, lipids, blood pressure, diabetes, obesity), socioeconomic and psychosocial factors (ie, education, symptoms of depression), grip strength, and household and ambient pollution. Associations between risk factors and the outcomes were established using multivariable Cox frailty models and using PAFs for the entire cohort, and also by countries grouped by income level. Associations are presented as HRs and PAFs with 95% CIs.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2016, 155 722 participants were enrolled and followed up for measurement of risk factors. 17 249 (11·1%) participants were from HICs, 102 680 (65·9%) were from MICs, and 35 793 (23·0%) from LICs. Approximately 70% of cardiovascular disease cases and deaths in the overall study population were attributed to modifiable risk factors. Metabolic factors were the predominant risk factors for cardiovascular disease (41·2% of the PAF), with hypertension being the largest (22·3% of the PAF). As a cluster, behavioural risk factors contributed most to deaths (26·3% of the PAF), although the single largest risk factor was a low education level (12·5% of the PAF). Ambient air pollution was associated with 13·9% of the PAF for cardiovascular disease, although different statistical methods were used for this analysis. In MICs and LICs, household air pollution, poor diet, low education, and low grip strength had stronger effects on cardiovascular disease or mortality than in HICs.
INTERPRETATION: Most cardiovascular disease cases and deaths can be attributed to a small number of common, modifiable risk factors. While some factors have extensive global effects (eg, hypertension and education), others (eg, household air pollution and poor diet) vary by a country's economic level. Health policies should focus on risk factors that have the greatest effects on averting cardiovascular disease and death globally, with additional emphasis on risk factors of greatest importance in specific groups of countries.
FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
METHODS: Using a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned participants without cardiovascular disease who had an elevated INTERHEART Risk Score to receive a polypill (containing 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril) or placebo daily, aspirin (75 mg) or placebo daily, and vitamin D or placebo monthly. We report here the outcomes for the polypill alone as compared with matching placebo, for aspirin alone as compared with matching placebo, and for the polypill plus aspirin as compared with double placebo. For the polypill-alone and polypill-plus-aspirin comparisons, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or revascularization. For the aspirin comparison, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety was also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 5713 participants underwent randomization, and the mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was lower by approximately 19 mg per deciliter and systolic blood pressure was lower by approximately 5.8 mm Hg with the polypill and with combination therapy than with placebo. The primary outcome for the polypill comparison occurred in 126 participants (4.4%) in the polypill group and in 157 (5.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.00). The primary outcome for the aspirin comparison occurred in 116 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group and in 134 (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10). The primary outcome for the polypill-plus-aspirin comparison occurred in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). The incidence of hypotension or dizziness was higher in groups that received the polypill than in their respective placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with a polypill plus aspirin led to a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than did placebo among participants without cardiovascular disease who were at intermediate cardiovascular risk. (Funded by the Wellcome Trust and others; TIPS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01646437.).