The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.

The Delta Np63 Proteins Are Key Allies of BRCA1 in the Prevention of Basal-Like Breast Cancer

Little is known about the origin of basal-like breast cancers, an aggressive disease that is highly similar to BRCA1-mutant breast cancers. p63 family proteins that are structurally related to the p53 suppressor protein are known to function in stem cell regulation and stratified epithelia development in multiple tissues, and p63 expression may be a marker of basal-like breast cancers. Here we report that Delta Np63 isoforms of p63 are transcriptional targets for positive regulation by BRCA1. Our analyses of breast cancer tissue microarrays and BRCA1-modulated breast cancer cell lines do not support earlier reports that p63 is a marker of basal-like or BRCA1 mutant cancers. Nevertheless, we found that BRCA1 interacts with the specific p63 isoform Delta Np63 gamma along with transcription factor isoforms AP-2 alpha and AP-2 gamma. BRCA1 required Delta Np63 gamma and AP-2 gamma to localize to an intronic enhancer region within the p63 gene to upregulate transcription of the Delta Np63 isoforms. In mammary stem/progenitor cells, siRNA- mediated knockdown of Delta Np63 expression resulted in genomic instability, increased cell proliferation, loss of DNA damage checkpoint control, and impaired growth control. Together, our findings establish that transcriptional upregulation of Delta Np63 proteins is critical for BRCA1 suppressor function and that defects in BRCA1-Delta Np63 signaling are key events in the pathogenesis of basal-like breast cancer. Cancer Res; 71( 5); 1933-44. (c) 2011 AACR.

Blood pressure lowering in patients without prior cerebrovascular disease for prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia

Background: This is an update of a previous review (McGuinness 2006). Hypertension and cognitive impairment are prevalent in older people. Hypertension is a direct risk factor for vascular dementia (VaD) and recent studies have suggested hypertension impacts upon prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Therefore does treatment of hypertension prevent cognitive decline?
Objectives: To assess the effects of blood pressure lowering treatments for the prevention of dementia and cognitive decline in patients with hypertension but no history of cerebrovascular disease.
Search strategy: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS as well as many trials databases and grey literature sources were searched on 13 February 2008 using the terms: hypertens$ OR anti-hypertens$. Selection criteria: Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials in which pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions to lower blood pressure were given for at least six months.
Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: incidence of dementia, cognitive change from baseline, blood pressure level, incidence and severity of side effects and quality of life.
Main results: Four trials including 15,936 hypertensive subjects were identified. Average age was 75.4 years. Mean blood pressure at entry across the studies was 171/86 mmHg. The combined result of the four trials reporting incidence of dementia indicated no significant difference between treatment and placebo (236/7767 versus 259/7660, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.74, 1.07) and there was considerable heterogeneity between the trials. The combined results from the three trials reporting change in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) did not indicate a benefit from treatment (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = 0.42, 95%CI 0.30, 0.53). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were reduced significantly in the three trials assessing this outcome (WMD = -10.22, 95% CI -10.78, -9.66 for systolic blood pressure, WMD = -4.28, 95% CI -4.58, -3.98 for diastolic blood pressure). Three trials reported adverse effects requiring discontinuation of treatment and the combined results indicated no significant difference (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.92, 1.11). When analysed separately, however, more patients on placebo in Syst Eur 1997 were likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects; the converse was true in SHEP 1991. Quality of life data could not be analysed in the four studies. Analysis of the included studies in this review was problematic as many of the control subjects received antihypertensive treatment because their blood pressures exceeded pre-set values. In most cases the study became a comparison between the study drug against a usual antihypertensive regimen.
Authors' conclusions: There is no convincing evidence fromthe trials identified that blood pressure lowering in late-life prevents the development of dementia or cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients with no apparent prior cerebrovascular disease. There were significant problems identified with analysing the data, however, due to the number of patients lost to follow-up and the number of placebo patients who received active treatment. This introduced bias. More robust results may be obtained by conducting a meta-analysis using individual patient data.

Statins for the prevention of dementia

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. At that stage there was insufficient evidence to recommend statins for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The scope of this review has been expanded to include all forms of dementia.
Objectives: To assess the effects of statins in the prevention of dementia.
Search strategy: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 10 October 2007 using the terms statin*, lovastatin*, pravastatin*, simvastatin*, fluvastatin*, atorvastatin* and rosuvastatin*. The CDCIG Register contains records from many healthcare databases, SIGLE, LILACS as well as many trials databases and is updated regularly.
Selection criteria: Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials of statins in people at risk of AD and dementia.
Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers extracted and assessed data independently and agreement was reached after discussion. Adverse effects were noted.
Main results: Two trials were identified with 26,340 participants; HPS 2002 and PROSPER 2002. Age range was 40-82 years across the two studies, PROSPER 2002 included 5804 patients aged 70-82 years and HPS included 20,536 patients with 5806 at least 70 years old at study entry. Mean total cholesterol 5.9 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 3.4 mmol/l at study entry with mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1.0mmol/l in simvastatin treated patients compared to placebo in HPS 2002. Mean total cholesterol 5.7 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 3.8 mmol/l at study entry with mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1.02 mmol/l in pravastatin treated patients compared to placebo in PROSPER 2002. Mean follow-up 3.2 years in PROSPER, 5 years in HPS 2002. Cognition was measured at different times and with different scales so could not be combined in a meta-analysis. There was no difference in incidence of dementia in HPS 2002 (31 cases in simvastatin group, 31 cases in placebo group) nor in performance on the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status at final follow-up (23.7% simvastatin group cognitively impaired vs 24.2% in placebo group). There was no difference in cognition between groups either in relation to age at study entry or previous history of cerebrovascular disease. Cognitive function declined at the same rate in both treatment groups in PROSPER 2002, there was no significant difference between pravastatin treated and placebo groups in performance on letter digit codes, picture word learning test, Stroop and Mini Mental State Examination. There was no evidence that statins were detrimental to cognition.
Authors' conclusions : There is good evidence from RCTs that statins given in late life to individuals at risk of vascular disease have no effect in preventing AD or dementia. Biologically it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. Indication bias may have been a factor in these studies however and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative.