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: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study is a prospective epidemiological study of individuals aged 35 and 70 years from 21 countries on five continents, with a median follow-up of 9.1 years. In the cross-sectional analyses, we assessed the association of dairy intake with prevalent MetS and its components among individuals with information on the five MetS components (n=112 922). For the prospective analyses, we examined the association of dairy with incident hypertension (in 57 547 individuals free of hypertension) and diabetes (in 131 481 individuals free of diabetes).
RESULTS: In cross-sectional analysis, higher intake of total dairy (at least two servings/day compared with zero intake; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80, p-trend<0.0001) was associated with a lower prevalence of MetS after multivariable adjustment. Higher intakes of whole fat dairy consumed alone (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78, p-trend<0.0001), or consumed jointly with low fat dairy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, p-trend=0.0005), were associated with a lower MetS prevalence. Low fat dairy consumed alone was not associated with MetS (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38, p-trend=0.13). In prospective analysis, 13 640 people with incident hypertension and 5351 people with incident diabetes were recorded. Higher intake of total dairy (at least two servings/day vs zero serving/day) was associated with a lower incidence of hypertension (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97, p-trend=0.02) and diabetes (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, p-trend=0.01). Directionally similar associations were found for whole fat dairy versus each outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher intake of whole fat (but not low fat) dairy was associated with a lower prevalence of MetS and most of its component factors, and with a lower incidence of hypertension and diabetes. Our findings should be evaluated in large randomized trials of the effects of whole fat dairy on the risks of MetS, hypertension, and diabetes.
METHODS: Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China.
RESULTS: The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs.
METHODS: We obtained random urine samples from 9,275 cases of acute first stroke and 9,726 matched controls from 27 countries and estimated the 24-hour sodium and potassium excretion, a surrogate for intake, using the Tanaka formula. Using multivariable conditional logistic regression, we determined the associations of estimated 24-hour urinary sodium and potassium excretion with stroke and its subtypes.
RESULTS: Compared with an estimated urinary sodium excretion of 2.8-3.5 g/day (reference), higher (>4.26 g/day) (odds ratio [OR] 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.00) and lower (<2.8 g/day) sodium excretion (OR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.53) were significantly associated with increased risk of stroke. The stroke risk associated with the highest quartile of sodium intake (sodium excretion >4.26 g/day) was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) (OR 2.38; 95% CI, 1.93-2.92) than for ischemic stroke (OR 1.67; 95% CI, 1.50-1.87). Urinary potassium was inversely and linearly associated with risk of stroke, and stronger for ischemic stroke than ICH (P = 0.026). In an analysis of combined sodium and potassium excretion, the combination of high potassium intake (>1.58 g/day) and moderate sodium intake (2.8-3.5 g/day) was associated with the lowest risk of stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: The association of sodium intake and stroke is J-shaped, with high sodium intake a stronger risk factor for ICH than ischemic stroke. Our data suggest that moderate sodium intake-rather than low sodium intake-combined with high potassium intake may be associated with the lowest risk of stroke and expected to be a more feasible combined dietary target.
METHODS: We undertook a standardised case-control study in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE). Cases were patients with acute first stroke (n=13 462) who were matched by age, sex and site to controls (n=13 483). We evaluated the associations of knowledge, awareness and treatment of hypertension with risk of stroke and its subtypes and whether this varied by gross national income (GNI) of country. We estimated OR and population attributable risk (PAR) associated with treated and untreated hypertension.
RESULTS: Hypertension was associated with a graded increase in OR by reducing GNI, ranging from OR 1.92 (99% CI 1.48 to 2.49) to OR 3.27 (2.72 to 3.93) for highest to lowest country-level GNI (p-heterogeneity<0.0001). Untreated hypertension was associated with a higher OR for stroke (OR 5.25; 4.53 to 6.10) than treated hypertension (OR 2.60; 2.32 to 2.91) and younger age of first stroke (61.4 vs 65.4 years; p<0.01). Untreated hypertension was associated with a greater risk of intracerebral haemorrhage (OR 6.95; 5.61 to 8.60) than ischaemic stroke (OR 4.76; 3.99 to 5.68). The PAR associated with untreated hypertension was higher in lower-income regions, PAR 36.3%, 26.3%, 19.8% to 10.4% by increasing GNI of countries. Lifetime non-measurement of blood pressure was associated with stroke (OR 1.80; 1.32 to 2.46).
CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in knowledge, detection and treatment of hypertension contribute to higher risk of stroke, younger age of onset and larger proportion of intracerebral haemorrhage in lower-income countries.
METHODS: The INTERSTROKE study is a case-control study of acute first stroke and was undertaken with 13,462 stroke cases and 13,488 controls recruited between January 11, 2007 and August 8, 2015 in 32 countries worldwide. Association of risk of tobacco use and ETS exposure were analysed with overall stroke, ischemic and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and with TOAST etiological stroke subtypes (large vessel, small vessel, cardioembolism, and undetermined).
FINDINGS: Current smoking was associated with an increased risk of all stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.46-1.84), and had a stronger association with ischemic stroke (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.61-2.11) than ICH (OR 1.19 95% CI 1.00-1.41). The OR and PAR of stroke among current smokers varied significantly between regions and income levels with high income countries (HIC) having the highest odds (OR 3.02 95% CI 2.24-4.10) and PAR (18.6%, 15.1-22.8%). Among etiological subtypes of ischemic stroke, the strongest association of current smoking was seen for large vessel stroke (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.63-2.87) and undetermined cause (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.55-2.50). Both filtered (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.50-1.99) and non-filtered (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.79-3.77) cigarettes were associated with stroke risk. ETS exposure increased the risk of stroke in a dose-dependent manner, exposure for more than 10 h per week increased risk for all stroke (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.69-2.27), ischemic stroke (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.59-2.24) and ICH (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.60-2.50).
INTERPRETATION: There are significant variations in the magnitude of risk and PAR of stroke according to the types of tobacco used, active and ETS exposure, and countries with different income levels. Specific strategies to discourage tobacco use by any form and to build a smoke free environment should be implemented to ease the global burden of stroke.
FUNDING: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies with major contributions from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, UK Chest, and UK Heart and Stroke.
METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).
METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.
RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.
CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.