Subclinical Atherosclerosis, Statin Eligibility, and Outcomes in African American Individuals: The Jackson Heart Study

Association of a Multiancestry Genome-Wide Blood Pressure Polygenic Risk Score With Adverse Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND

Traditional cardiovascular risk factors and the underlying genetic risk of elevated blood pressure (BP) determine an individual's composite risk of developing adverse cardiovascular events. We sought to evaluate the relative contributions of the traditional cardiovascular risk factors to the development of adverse cardiovascular events in the context of varying BP genetic risk profiles.

METHODS

Genome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS) was computed using multiancestry genome-wide association estimates among US adults who underwent whole-genome sequencing in the Trans-Omics for Precision program. Individuals were stratified into high, intermediate, and low genetic risk groups (>80th, 20-80th, and <20th centiles of systolic BP [SBP] PRS). Based on the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations, participants were stratified into low and high (10 year-atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [CVD] risk: <10% or ≥10%) cardiovascular risk factor profile groups. The primary study outcome was incident cardiovascular event (composite of incident heart failure, incident stroke, and incident coronary heart disease).

RESULTS

Among 21 897 US adults (median age: 56 years; 56.0% women; 35.8% non-White race/ethnicity), 1 SD increase in the SBP PRS, computed using 1.08 million variants, was associated with SBP (β: 4.39 [95% CI, 4.13-4.65]) and hypertension (odds ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.46-1.55]), respectively. This association was robustly seen across racial/ethnic groups. Each SD increase in SBP PRS was associated with a higher risk of the incident CVD (multivariable-adjusted hazards ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]) after controlling for ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations risk scores. Among individuals with a high SBP PRS, low atherosclerotic CVD risk was associated with a 58% lower hazard for incident CVD (multivariable-adjusted hazards ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.36-0.50]) compared to those with high atherosclerotic CVD risk. A similar pattern was noted in intermediate and low genetic risk groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multiancestry cohort of >21 000 US adults, genome-wide SBP PRS was associated with BP traits and adverse cardiovascular events. Adequate control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors may reduce the predisposition to adverse cardiovascular events among those with a high SBP PRS.

Coronary Artery Calcium for Risk Assessment in Young Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the prognostic significance and clinical utility of coronary artery calcium (CAC) for risk assessment for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in younger adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from over 3000 young adults (mean age of 40.3 ± 3.6 followed for 12.5 years) in the CARDIA registry found that in an asymptomatic, community representative sample, there was a low prevalence of CAC (~ 10%) but those with CAC had an exponential increase in CAC over time and significantly higher rates of ASCVD events. Alternatively, data from the CAC consortium analyzed 22,346 asymptomatic individuals undergoing CAC for clinical indications (mean age 43.5 ± 4.5 years, followed for 13 ± 4 years) and found a much higher prevalence of CAC at 34% with rates of coronary heart disease mortality that varied significantly according to CAC. In younger adults, CAC provides clear prognostic value and can be considered in select individuals with uncertainties about their ASCVD risk or the benefit of preventive therapies.

Subclinical cardiovascular disease and utility of coronary artery calcium score

ASCVD are the leading causes of mortality and morbidity among Globe. Evaluation of patients' comprehensive and personalized risk provides risk management strategies and preventive interventions to achieve gain for patients. Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation Score (SCORE) are two well studied risk scoring models, however, can miss some (20-35%) of future cardiovascular events. To obtain more accurate risk assessment recalibrating risk models through utilizing novel risk markers have been studied in last 3 decades and both ESC and AHA recommends assessing Family History, hs-CRP, CACS, ABI, and CIMT. Subclinical Cardiovascular Disease (SCVD) has been conceptually developed for investigating gradually progressing asymptomatic development of atherosclerosis and among these novel risk markers it has been well established by literature that CACS having highest improvement in risk assessment. This review study mainly selectively discussing studies with CACS measurement. A CACS = 0 can down-stratify risk of patients otherwise treated or treatment eligible before test and can reduce unnecessary interventions and cost, whereas CACS ≥ 100 is equivalent to statin treatment threshold of ≥ 7.5% risk level otherwise statin ineligible before test. Since inflammation, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, dyslipidemia and ongoing endothelial damage due to hypertension could lead to CAC, ASCVD linked with comorbidities. Recent cohort studies have shown a CACS 100-300 as a sign of increased cancer risk. Physical activity, dietary factors, cigarette use, alcohol consumption, metabolic health, family history of CHD, aging, exposures of neighborhood environment and non-cardiovascular comorbidities can determine CACs changes.

Is There a Role of Coronary CTA in Primary Prevention? Current State and Future Directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Information on subclinical atherosclerosis burden provides prognostic information on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk beyond what can be achieved by traditional risk factors alone and may therefore improve allocation of preventive treatment in primary prevention. The purpose of this review is to discuss the potential role and value of assessing subclinical atherosclerosis using coronary artery calcium (CAC) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) among asymptomatic patients in the context of current primary prevention cholesterol guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since 2013, primary prevention cholesterol guidelines have lowered the treatment threshold for initiating statin therapy resulting in high statin eligibility and sensitivity for detecting ASCVD events. Thus, one of the main advantages of assessing subclinical atherosclerosis is to identify those individuals who are at so low ASCVD risk that preventive treatment may safely be withhold. Numerous studies have shown that both CAC and CTA provide highly valuable information on ASCVD risk in the individual patient. However, while extensive data exist regarding the ability of CAC to improve treatment allocation in the context of primary prevention guidelines, such data is sparse for CTA. Furthermore, there is no data to show that CTA improves risk classification and treatment allocation in primary prevention beyond what can be achieved by assessment of CAC. Although CTA provides important information regarding prognosis in symptomatic patients undergoing clinical CTA, there is no strong evidence to support its use in the primary prevention setting. Thus, the potential value of CTA in primary prevention is not clear and is currently not recommended by guidelines.

Role of coronary artery calcium score in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

First developed in 1990, the Agatston coronary artery calcium (CAC) score is an international guideline-endorsed decision aid for further risk assessment and personalized management in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This review discusses key international studies that have informed this 30 year journey, from an initial coronary plaque screening paradigm to its current role informing personalized shared decision making. Special attention is paid to the prognostic value of a CAC score of zero (the so called "power of zero"), which, in a context of low estimated risk thresholds for the consideration of preventive therapy with statins in current guidelines, may be used to de-risk individuals and thereby inform the safe delay or avoidance of certain preventive therapies. We also evaluate current recommendations for CAC scoring in clinical practice guidelines around the world, and past and prevailing barriers for its use in routine patient care. Finally, we discuss emerging approaches in this field, with a focus on the potential role of CAC informing not only the personalized allocation of statins and aspirin in the general population, but also of other risk-reduction therapies in special populations, such as individuals with diabetes and people with severe hypercholesterolemia.

Coronary Artery Calcium Score for Personalization of Antihypertensive Therapy: A Pooled Cohort Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association high blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend risk assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to inform hypertension treatment in adults with elevated BP or low-risk stage I hypertension. The use of coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to guide hypertension therapy has not been adequately evaluated. Participants free of cardiovascular disease were pooled from Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults, and Jackson Heart Study. The risk for incident cardiovascular events (heart failure, stroke, coronary heart disease), by CAC status (CAC-0 or CAC>0) and BP treatment group was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. The 10-year number needed to treat to prevent a single cardiovascular event was also estimated. This study included 6461 participants (median age 53 years; 53.3% women; 32.3% Black participants). Over a median follow-up of 8.5 years, 347 incident cardiovascular events occurred. Compared with those with normal BP, the risk of incident cardiovascular event was higher among those with elevated BP/low-risk stage I hypertension and CAC>0 (hazard ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.7–3.4]) and high-risk stage I/stage II hypertension (BP, 140–160/80–100 mm Hg) with CAC>0 (hazard ratio, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.1–4.0]). A similar pattern was evident across racial subgroups and for individual study outcomes. Among those with CAC-0, the 10-year number needed to treat was 160 for elevated BP/low-risk stage I hypertension and 44 for high-risk stage I or stage II hypertension (BP, 140–160/80–100 mm Hg). Among those with CAC>0, the 10-year number needed to treat was 36 and 22, respectively. Utilization of the CAC score may guide the initiation of hypertension therapy and preventive approaches to personalize cardiovascular risk reduction among individuals where the current guidelines do not recommend treatment.

The evolving role of coronary artery calcium in preventive cardiology 30 years after the Agatston score

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

On the brink of the 30th anniversary of the Agatston score we summarize the epidemiological data that shaped the recommendations relevant to coronary artery calcium (CAC) included in the 2018/2019 US and European guidelines for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We also discuss the implications of novel CAC research conducted in asymptomatic populations within the past 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a wealth of observational evidence, CAC has emerged as a mainstay in personalized risk assessment and is now endorsed as a class IIa tool in both US and European guidelines. In the past 2 years, data supporting the prognostic power of CAC has kept mounting, with longer term follow-up data now available. CAC has been evaluated in a variety of patient populations including individuals with severe hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus and younger adults with family history of ASCVD, in all of whom it may be able to inform a more personalized management. Novel CAC scoring approaches are also discussed.

SUMMARY

Despite a strong endorsement in recent guidelines, active research in the last 2 years has provided further insights on the potential utility of CAC in informing a more individualized preventive management in broader populations.

Preventive Cardiology and Risk Assessment: Beyond LDL

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Risk assessment is the foundational cornerstone for cardiovascular prevention. The goal of this review is to apprise the reader of the latest evidence and guideline-based stepwise method for clinical risk assessment for future atherosclerotic events. We also discuss caveats to the current approach and review future directions including the promise of precision medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most recent cholesterol and prevention guidelines improve upon the widely used pooled cohort equations by incorporating risk-enhancing factors to further personalize risk assessment. For those in whom uncertainty remains, there is mounting evidence for using the coronary calcium score to uncover subclinical disease to either up- or down-classify risk. Although still in its infancy, progress in high-throughput molecular analysis is edging the field closer to more precise risk stratification. Atherosclerosis is the leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. Emphasis on cardiovascular prevention is essential to mitigate the burden of disease. Here, we introduce a "4 + 2" paradigm for approaching preventive cardiology based on recent guidelines. Risk stratification is performed in four steps: qualitative risk approximation to initiate counseling and education, quantitative risk estimation based on a validated model, personalization with risk-enhancing factors, and measurement of coronary artery calcium score in select patients. The two foundational principles of preventive management are to promote a healthy lifestyle in all and to escalate preventive pharmacotherapy based on increasing risk. Shared decision-making remains central throughout this process.

Cost-effectiveness of Contemporary Statin Use Guidelines With or Without Coronary Artery Calcium Assessment in African American Individuals

Importance

Clinical and economic consequences of statin treatment guidelines supplemented by targeted coronary artery calcium (CAC) assessment have not been evaluated in African American individuals, who are at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and less likely than non-African American individuals to receive statin therapy.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline without a recommendation for CAC assessment vs the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline recommendation for use of a non-0 CAC score measured on one occasion to target generic-formulation, moderate-intensity statin treatment in African American individuals at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A microsimulation model was designed to estimate life expectancy, quality of life, costs, and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. African American-specific data from 472 participants in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and other US population-specific data on individuals from published sources were used. Data analysis was conducted from November 11, 2018, to November 1, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually.

Results

In a model-based economic evaluation informed in part by follow-up data, the analysis was focused on 472 individuals in the JHS at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; mean (SD) age was 63 (6.7) years. The sample included 243 women (51.5%) and 229 men (48.5%). Of these, 178 of 304 participants (58.6%) who underwent CAC assessment had a non-0 CAC score. In the base-case scenario, implementation of 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment provided a greater quality-adjusted life expectancy (0.0027 QALY) at a higher cost ($428.97) compared with the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $158 325/QALY, which is considered to represent low-value care by the ACC/AHA definition. The 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment provided greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment when there was a strong patient preference to avoid use of daily medication therapy. In probability sensitivity analyses, the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment was cost-effective compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment in 76% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay value of $100 000/QALY when there was a preference to lose 2 weeks of perfect health to avoid 1 decade of daily therapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

A CAC assessment-guided strategy for statin therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with initiating statin therapy in all African American individuals at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and may provide greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost than a non-CAC assessment-guided strategy when there is a strong patient preference to avoid the need for daily medication. Coronary artery calcium testing may play a role in shared decision-making regarding statin use.

HOPE for Rational Statin Allocation for Primary Prevention: A Coronary Artery Calcium Picture Is Worth 1000 Words

Allocation of statin therapy for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in borderline- and intermediate-risk patients has traditionally been based on population-based global risk assessment and other clinical and laboratory characteristics. Patient-specific treatment decisions are needed to provide maximal benefit and avoid unnecessary treatment. Guideline-based lipid management proposes that coronary artery calcium scoring is reasonable to implement in patients with a 10-year risk of 5.0% to 19.9% (borderline to intermediate risk) by using the pooled cohort equations when the decision about whether to initiate statin therapy is uncertain. We report data from both observational studies and a large primary prevention randomized controlled trial that support the position that this decision is, in fact, uncertain in about half of such patients because of risk misclassification. Such misclassification can be largely avoided by more widespread implementation of coronary calcium scoring, which helps to identify those with coronary artery calcium scores of 0, a finding associated with a less than 5.0% 10-year probability of an ASCVD event. Deferral of statin therapy in such patients, in the absence of smoking, diabetes, or a family history of premature ASCVD, provides more individualized and appropriate care and avoids the expense and potential adverse effects of statin therapy in those with low potential for absolute risk reduction. A rationale is also provided for the importance of coronary artery calcium scoring in women 50 years and older, possibly in place of 1 screening mammogram in women at least 55 years of age to avoid incremental radiation exposure, on the basis of the substantially higher lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality from ASCVD than from breast cancer. In patients with borderline or intermediate ASCVD risk, coronary artery calcium scoring should be used, whenever possible, as an aid to rational statin allocation for the primary prevention of ASCVD.

Racial and Gender Disparity in Achieving Optimal Medical Therapy for Inpatients with Peripheral Artery Disease

Best medical therapy for peripheral artery disease (PAD) includes statin and anti-platelet agents, a combination shown to decrease rates of major cardiovascular events. Despite these findings, many patients remain undertreated and the objective of this project was to investigate the rate of initiating anti-platelet and statin therapy for inpatients newly diagnosed with PAD with a focus on disparities by race and sex. A retrospective chart review of inpatients with newly diagnosed PAD was performed between January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 at a single institution. Demographics and comorbid conditions were collected. Primary outcomes included antiplatelet and statin prescription at discharge. The 44 patients included in this study were predominantly male (59% vs. 41%) and African American (61% vs. 39%). Between admission and discharge, prescriptions rose from 70% to 82% for statin and 82% to 91% for anti-platelet agents. Vascular specialists were more successful than non-vascular specialists at initiating medical therapy, with statin prescriptions increasing 22% and anti-platelet prescriptions climbing 23% for those admitted to a vascular specialist. Interestingly, when the ABI was reported in the normal range, rates of statin initiation were particularly compromised at only 40%. For the total patient sample, those discharged without a statin were more commonly African American (63%) and the majority were female (67%). All patients discharged without an antiplatelet were African American and 50% were females. Despite national guidelines, patients with PAD continue to be discharged without optimal medical therapy. This study suggests that obstacles to initiation may include race, sex, admitting service, or presence of a normal ABI. Further investigation is warranted to determine effective avenues for provider education and system-wide initiatives.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2020 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, metrics to assess and monitor healthy diets, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, a focus on the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the American Heart Association's 2020 Impact Goals.

RESULTS

Each of the 26 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, healthcare administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

1. The most important way to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation is to promote a healthy lifestyle throughout life.

2. A team-based care approach is an effective strategy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Clinicians should evaluate the social determinants of health that affect individuals to inform treatment decisions.

3. Adults who are 40 to 75 years of age and are being evaluated for cardiovascular disease prevention should undergo 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimation and have a clinician–patient risk discussion before starting on pharmacological therapy, such as antihypertensive therapy, a statin, or aspirin. The presence or absence of additional risk-enhancing factors can help guide decisions about preventive interventions in select individuals, as can coronary artery calcium scanning.

4. All adults should consume a healthy diet that emphasizes the intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, lean vegetable or animal protein, and fish and minimizes the intake of trans fats, processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages. For adults with overweight and obesity, counseling and caloric restriction are recommended for achieving and maintaining weight loss.

5. Adults should engage in at least 150 minutes per week of accumulated moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity.

6. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, lifestyle changes, such as improving dietary habits and achieving exercise recommendations are crucial. If medication is indicated, metformin is first-line therapy, followed by consideration of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist.

7. All adults should be assessed at every healthcare visit for tobacco use, and those who use tobacco should be assisted and strongly advised to quit.

8. Aspirin should be used infrequently in the routine primary prevention of ASCVD because of lack of net benefit.

9. Statin therapy is first-line treatment for primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (≥190 mg/dL), those with diabetes mellitus, who are 40 to 75 years of age, and those determined to be at sufficient ASCVD risk after a clinician–patient risk discussion.

10. Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended for all adults with elevated blood pressure or hypertension. For those requiring pharmacological therapy, the target blood pressure should generally be <130/80 mm Hg.

Estimated Cardiovascular Risk and Guideline-Concordant Primary Prevention With Statins: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analyses of US Ambulatory Visits Using Competing Algorithms

INTRODUCTION

The 2013 pooled cohort equations (PCE) may misestimate cardiovascular event (CVE) risk, particularly for black patients. Alternatives to the original PCE (O-PCE) to assess potential statin benefit for primary prevention-a revised PCE (R-PCE) and US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) algorithms-have not been compared in contemporary US patients in routine office-based practice.

METHODS

We performed retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative, US sample of office visits made from 2011 to 2014. Sampling criteria matched those used for PCE development: aged 40 to 79 years, black or white race, no cardiovascular disease. Original PCE, R-PCE, and USPSTF algorithms were applied to biometric and demographic data. Outcomes included estimated 10-year CVE risk, percentage exceeding each algorithm's statin-treatment threshold (>7.5% risk for O-PCE and R-PCE, and >10% O-PCE plus >1 risk factor for USPSTF), and percentage prescribed statin therapy.

RESULTS

In 12 556 visits (representing 285 330 123 nationwide), 10.8% of patients were black, 27.1% had diabetes, and 15.7% were current smokers. Replacing O-PCE with R-PCE decreased mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) estimated CVE risk from 12.4% (12.0%-12.7%) to 8.5% (8.2%-8.8%). Significant (P < 0.05) racial disparity in the rate of CVE risk >7.5% was identified using O-PCE (black and white patients [95% CI], respectively: 58.8% [54.6%-62.9%] vs 52.8% [51.1%-54.4%], P = .006) but not R-PCE (41.6% [37.6%-45.7%] vs 39.9% [38.3%-41.5%], P = .448). Revised PCE and USPSTF recommendations were concordant for 90% of patients. Significant racial disparity in guideline-concordant statin prescribing was found using O-PCE (black and white patients, respectively, 35.0% [30.5%-39.9%] vs 41.8% [39.9%-44.4%], P = .013), but not R-PCE (40.6% [35.0%-46.6%] vs 43.0% [40.0%-45.9%], P = .482) or USPSTF recommendations (39.0% [33.8%-44.5%] vs 44.4% [41.5%-47.5%], P = .073).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an alternative to O-PCE may reduce racial disparity in estimated CVE risk and may facilitate shared decision-making about primary prevention.

Sex Differences in Statin Prescribing in Diabetic and Heart Disease Patients in FQHCs: A Comparison of the ATPIII and 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in the rate of statin prescribing based on the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III and 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines across sex in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and to determine the proportion of patients on recommended statin dosage based on the 2013 cholesterol guideline.

Methods:

The Office Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) study is a quasi-experimental, 2 FQHCs center study that enrolled patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus (DM). We computed 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risks scores based on ACC guidelines and determined the rate of statin prescribing across sex in FQHCs using both guidelines. Main outcomes measures were (1) rate of statin prescribing based on ATPIII and 2013 cholesterol guidelines across sex and (2) proportion of patients on recommended statin dosage based on the 2013 cholesterol guideline.

Results:

The 2013 cholesterol guideline did not increase the rate of eligibility of statin for men and women compared to ATPIII guideline. No significant difference between men and women in statin prescribing under ATPIII (67% vs 57%, P = .13) and 2013 cholesterol guidelines (66% vs 63%, P = .69) and in the recommended dosage of statin per the 2013 cholesterol guidelines between men and women in FQHCs (12% vs 22%, P = .22).

Conclusions:

We found statin underprescribing for both men and women with ASCVD and DM in FQHCs. Utilizing both the ATPIII and the 2013 cholesterol guidelines, men with ASCVD and DM were prescribed statin more than women. However, fewer men were found to be on the recommended dosage of statin based on the 2013 cholesterol guideline. Our findings suggest that Office-GAP may have improved the prescription/use of statin in both men and women.

Use of Risk Assessment Tools to Guide Decision-Making in the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology

Risk assessment is a critical step in the current approach to primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Knowledge of the 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease identifies patients in higher-risk groups who are likely to have greater net benefit and lower number needed to treat for both statins and antihypertensive therapy. Current US prevention guidelines for blood pressure and cholesterol management recommend use of the pooled cohort equations to start a process of shared decision-making between clinicians and patients in primary prevention. The pooled cohort equations have been widely validated and are broadly useful for the general US clinical population. But, they may systematically underestimate risk in patients from certain racial/ethnic groups, those with lower socioeconomic status or with chronic inflammatory diseases, and overestimate risk in patients with higher socioeconomic status or who have been closely engaged with preventive healthcare services. If uncertainty remains for patients at borderline or intermediate risk, or if the patient is undecided after a patient-clinician discussion with consideration of risk enhancing factors (eg, family history), additional testing with measurement of coronary artery calcium can be useful to reclassify risk estimates and improve selection of patients for use or avoidance of statin therapy. This special report summarizes the rationale and evidence base for quantitative risk assessment, reviews strengths and limitations of existing risk scores, discusses approaches for refining individual risk estimates for patients, and provides practical advice regarding implementation of risk assessment and decision-making strategies in clinical practice.

Use of Risk Assessment Tools to Guide Decision-Making in the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology

Risk assessment is a critical step in the current approach to primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Knowledge of the 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease identifies patients in higher-risk groups who are likely to have greater net benefit and lower number needed to treat for both statins and antihypertensive therapy. Current U.S. prevention guidelines for blood pressure and cholesterol management recommend use of the pooled cohort equations to start a process of shared decision-making between clinicians and patients in primary prevention. The pooled cohort equations have been widely validated and are broadly useful for the general U.S. clinical population. But, they may systematically underestimate risk in patients from certain racial/ethnic groups, those with lower socioeconomic status or with chronic inflammatory diseases, and overestimate risk in patients with higher socioeconomic status or who have been closely engaged with preventive healthcare services. If uncertainty remains for patients at borderline or intermediate risk, or if the patient is undecided after a patient-clinician discussion with consideration of risk enhancing factors (e.g., family history), additional testing with measurement of coronary artery calcium can be useful to reclassify risk estimates and improve selection of patients for use or avoidance of statin therapy. This special report summarizes the rationale and evidence base for quantitative risk assessment, reviews strengths and limitations of existing risk scores, discusses approaches for refining individual risk estimates for patients, and provides practical advice regarding implementation of risk assessment and decision-making strategies in clinical practice.

Coronary Calcium Score and Cardiovascular Risk

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a highly specific feature of coronary atherosclerosis. On the basis of single-center and multicenter clinical and population-based studies with short-term and long-term outcomes data (up to 15-year follow-up), CAC scoring has emerged as a widely available, consistent, and reproducible means of assessing risk for major cardiovascular outcomes, especially useful in asymptomatic people for planning primary prevention interventions such as statins and aspirin. CAC testing in asymptomatic populations is cost effective across a broad range of baseline risk. This review summarizes evidence concerning CAC, including its pathobiology, modalities for detection, predictive role, use in prediction scoring algorithms, CAC progression, evidence that CAC changes the clinical approach to the patient and patient behavior, novel applications of CAC, future directions in scoring CAC scans, and new CAC guidelines.

Statin Eligibility, Coronary Artery Calcium, and Subsequent Cardiovascular Events According to the 2016 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Statin Guidelines: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis)

Background

The potential impact of the 2016 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines on statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) warrants further analysis.

Methods and Results

We studied participants from MESA (Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) aged 40 to 75 years and not on statins. We compared statin eligibility at baseline (2000–2002) and over follow‐up between USPSTF and the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) was measured at baseline. Absolute ASCVD event rates were calculated according to eligibility categories for each guideline. Among 4962 MESA participants (aged 59.3±8.8 years, 47.2% female), compared with ACC/AHA guidelines, baseline statin eligibility by USPSTF was significantly lower (34.4% versus 49.1%) and increased less over time (39.1% versus 59.1%) at examination 5 [years 2010–2012]). Compared with ACC/AHA, participants eligible by USPSTF were less likely to have zero CAC at baseline (36.6% versus 41.2%) and had higher rates of hard ASCVD events per 1000 person‐years (11.6 [95% confidence interval, 10.2–13.3] versus 10.0 [8.9–11.3]). The hard ASCVD event rate in those eligible by ACC/AHA but not USPSTF was 6.5 (4.9–8.5) events per 1000 person‐years, with the rate varying significantly according to baseline CAC (4.2 [2.7–6.7] events in those with CAC=0, 12.8 [8.3–19.9] events in those with CAC >100).

Conclusions

In MESA, compared with ACC/AHA, the USPSTF statin guidelines resulted in a 15% absolute decrease in eligibility. Participants with discordant eligibility had ASCVD rates that varied significantly according to baseline CAC, suggesting CAC could aid clinical decision making for statins in these individuals.

Validation of the 2016 USPSTF recommendations for primary cardiovascular prevention in a large contemporary cohort

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cholesterol recommendations in a contemporary non-US cohort.

Methods and results

This is a historical cohort analysis of electronic records from Israel's largest health provider. All patients in the Tel Aviv district eligible for primary cardiovascular prevention were followed between January 2005 and December 2015. Risk was estimated by the pooled cohort equations. Statin eligibility was determined by USPSTF and American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommendations. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events were retrieved from electronic registration. The mean ± standard deviation age of the 10,889 (98,258 person-years) participants was 60.3 ± 9.4 years, and 69.1% were women. Outcome events were recorded for 1351 patients (12.4%). Treatment recommendations were discordant in 901 patients (8.3%) whose treatment was indicated only by the ACC/AHA guidelines, implying a 26% reduction in newly eligible patients for statin treatment had the USPSTF recommendations been implemented. Among the statin-naive patients, the pooled cohort equations underestimated the risk, with a predicted-to-observed event ratio of 0.88. The recommended treatment thresholds provided excellent calibration, with ratios of 1.0 for USPSTF and 0.98 for ACC/AHA-eligible patients. Both models showed similar discrimination (Harrel's C = 0.63 (0.62–0.65) for USPSTF vs. 0.64 (0.63–0.66) for ACC/AHA, P = 0.26). The USPSTF recommendations were less sensitive and more specific for the detection of outcome events than the ACC/AHA recommendations (61% vs. 75% and 68% vs. 55%, respectively). The net reclassification index was −0.01.

Conclusions

Calibration, discrimination and net reclassifications were very similar for USPSTF and ACC/AHA recommendations. Applying the USPSTF recommendations could reduce over-treatment.

Comparisons of the Framingham and Pooled Cohort Equation Risk Scores for Detecting Subclinical Vascular Disease in Blacks Versus Whites

The pooled cohort Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk calculator is designed to improve cardiovascular risk estimation compared with the Framingham Risk Score, particularly in blacks. Although the ASCVD risk score better predicts mortality and incident cardiovascular disease in blacks, less is known about its performance for subclinical vascular disease measures, including arterial stiffness and carotid intima-media thickness. We sought to determine if the ASCVD risk score better identifies subclinical vascular disease in blacks compared with the Framingham risk score. We calculated both the Framingham and ASCVD cohort risk scores in 1,231 subjects (mean age 53 years, 59% female, 37% black) without known cardiovascular disease and measured the extent of arterial stiffness, as determined by pulse wave velocity (PWV), central pulse pressure (CPP), and central augmentation index (CAIx), and subclinical atherosclerosis, as determined by carotid-IMT (C-IMT). Compared with whites, blacks had higher CAIx (23.9 ± 10.2 vs 22.1 ± 9.6%, p = 0.004), CPP (36.4 ± 10.5 vs 34.9 ± 9.8 mmHg, p = 0.014), PWV (7.6 ± 1.5 vs 7.3 ± 1.3 m/s, p = 0.004), and C-IMT (0.67 ± 0.10 vs 0.65 ± 0.10 mm, p = 0.005). In a multivariable analysis including race and Framingham risk score, race remained an independent predictor of all measures of subclinical vascular disease; however, models with race and the ASCVD risk score showed that race was not an independent predictor of subclinical vascular disease. In conclusion, greater subclinical vascular disease in blacks was not estimated by the Framingham risk score. The new ASCVD risk score provided a better estimate of racial differences in vascular function and structure.