49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Temporal trends and patterns in heart failure incidence: a population-based study of 4 million individuals

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Large-scale and contemporary population-based studies of heart failure incidence are needed to inform resource planning and research prioritisation but current evidence is scarce. We aimed to assess temporal trends in incidence and prevalence of heart failure in a large general population cohort from the UK, between 2002 and 2014.

          Methods

          For this population-based study, we used linked primary and secondary electronic health records of 4 million individuals from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a cohort that is representative of the UK population in terms of age and sex. Eligible patients were aged 16 years and older, had contributed data between Jan 1, 2002, and Dec 31, 2014, had an acceptable record according to CPRD quality control, were approved for CPRD and Hospital Episodes Statistics linkage, and were registered with their general practice for at least 12 months. For patients with incident heart failure, we extracted the most recent measurement of baseline characteristics (within 2 years of diagnosis) from electronic health records, as well as information about comorbidities, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and region. We calculated standardised rates by applying direct age and sex standardisation to the 2013 European Standard Population, and we inferred crude rates by applying year-specific, age-specific, and sex-specific incidence to UK census mid-year population estimates. We assumed no heart failure for patients aged 15 years or younger and report total incidence and prevalence for all ages (>0 years).

          Findings

          From 2002 to 2014, heart failure incidence (standardised by age and sex) decreased, similarly for men and women, by 7% (from 358 to 332 per 100 000 person-years; adjusted incidence ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·91–0·94). However, the estimated absolute number of individuals with newly diagnosed heart failure in the UK increased by 12% (from 170 727 in 2002 to 190 798 in 2014), largely due to an increase in population size and age. The estimated absolute number of prevalent heart failure cases in the UK increased even more, by 23% (from 750 127 to 920 616). Over the study period, patient age and multi-morbidity at first presentation of heart failure increased (mean age 76·5 years [SD 12·0] to 77·0 years [12·9], adjusted difference 0·79 years, 95% CI 0·37–1·20; mean number of comorbidities 3·4 [SD 1·9] vs 5·4 [2·5]; adjusted difference 2·0, 95% CI 1·9–2·1). Socioeconomically deprived individuals were more likely to develop heart failure than were affluent individuals (incidence rate ratio 1·61, 95% CI 1·58–1·64), and did so earlier in life than those from the most affluent group (adjusted difference −3·51 years, 95% CI −3·77 to −3·25). From 2002 to 2014, the socioeconomic gradient in age at first presentation with heart failure widened. Socioeconomically deprived individuals also had more comorbidities, despite their younger age.

          Interpretation

          Despite a moderate decline in standardised incidence of heart failure, the burden of heart failure in the UK is increasing, and is now similar to the four most common causes of cancer combined. The observed socioeconomic disparities in disease incidence and age at onset within the same nation point to a potentially preventable nature of heart failure that still needs to be tackled.

          Funding

          British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

          Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Global, Regional, and National Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases for 10 Causes, 1990 to 2015

            Background The burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remains unclear in many regions of the world. Objectives The GBD (Global Burden of Disease) 2015 study integrated data on disease incidence, prevalence, and mortality to produce consistent, up-to-date estimates for cardiovascular burden. Methods CVD mortality was estimated from vital registration and verbal autopsy data. CVD prevalence was estimated using modeling software and data from health surveys, prospective cohorts, health system administrative data, and registries. Years lived with disability (YLD) were estimated by multiplying prevalence by disability weights. Years of life lost (YLL) were estimated by multiplying age-specific CVD deaths by a reference life expectancy. A sociodemographic index (SDI) was created for each location based on income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. Results In 2015, there were an estimated 422.7 million cases of CVD (95% uncertainty interval: 415.53 to 427.87 million cases) and 17.92 million CVD deaths (95% uncertainty interval: 17.59 to 18.28 million CVD deaths). Declines in the age-standardized CVD death rate occurred between 1990 and 2015 in all high-income and some middle-income countries. Ischemic heart disease was the leading cause of CVD health lost globally, as well as in each world region, followed by stroke. As SDI increased beyond 0.25, the highest CVD mortality shifted from women to men. CVD mortality decreased sharply for both sexes in countries with an SDI >0.75. Conclusions CVDs remain a major cause of health loss for all regions of the world. Sociodemographic change over the past 25 years has been associated with dramatic declines in CVD in regions with very high SDI, but only a gradual decrease or no change in most regions. Future updates of the GBD study can be used to guide policymakers who are focused on reducing the overall burden of noncommunicable disease and achieving specific global health targets for CVD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

              The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is an ongoing primary care database of anonymised medical records from general practitioners, with coverage of over 11.3 million patients from 674 practices in the UK. With 4.4 million active (alive, currently registered) patients meeting quality criteria, approximately 6.9% of the UK population are included and patients are broadly representative of the UK general population in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. General practitioners are the gatekeepers of primary care and specialist referrals in the UK. The CPRD primary care database is therefore a rich source of health data for research, including data on demographics, symptoms, tests, diagnoses, therapies, health-related behaviours and referrals to secondary care. For over half of patients, linkage with datasets from secondary care, disease-specific cohorts and mortality records enhance the range of data available for research. The CPRD is very widely used internationally for epidemiological research and has been used to produce over 1000 research studies, published in peer-reviewed journals across a broad range of health outcomes. However, researchers must be aware of the complexity of routinely collected electronic health records, including ways to manage variable completeness, misclassification and development of disease definitions for research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                10 February 2018
                10 February 2018
                : 391
                : 10120
                : 572-580
                Affiliations
                [a ]The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [b ]Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [c ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [d ]Bristol National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [e ]Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
                [f ]The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK
                [g ]The National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust/University College London, London, UK
                [h ]Robertson Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
                [i ]Institute for Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
                [j ]National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [k ]Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Kazem Rahimi, The George Institute for Global Health, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QX, UKCorrespondence to: Prof Kazem Rahimi, The George Institute for Global HealthOxford Martin SchoolUniversity of OxfordOxfordOX1 3QXUK kazem.rahimi@ 123456georgeinstitute.ox.ac.uk
                Article
                S0140-6736(17)32520-5
                10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32520-5
                5814791
                29174292
                da4fdd64-b7f4-490e-b2bf-1cec9de99bc4
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article