Pathways Forward in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention One and a Half Years After Publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Guidelines

Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The polypill strategy, originally developed to improve medication adherence, has demonstrated efficacy in improving baseline systolic blood pressures and cholesterol levels in multiple clinical trials. However, the long-term clinical impact of improved major cardiovascular events (MACE) outcomes by the polypill remains uncertain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent trials with long-term follow-up, which included minority groups and people with low socioeconomic status, have shown non-inferiority with no difference in adverse effects rates for the secondary prevention of MACE. Although the polypill strategy was initially introduced to improve adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for cardiovascular complications, the strategy has surpassed standard medical treatment for secondary prevention of MACE outcomes. Studies also showed improved medication compliance in underserved populations.

Disparities in Cardiovascular Care and Outcomes for Women From Racial/Ethnic Minority Backgrounds

Purpose of review

Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in cardiovascular care are well-documented. This review aims to highlight the disparities and impact on a group particularly vulnerable to disparities, women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds.

Recent findings

Women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds remain underrepresented in major cardiovascular trials, limiting the generalizability of cardiovascular research to this population. Certain cardiovascular risk factors are more prevalent in women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, including traditional risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. Female-specific risk factors including gestational diabetes and preeclampsia as well as non-traditional psychosocial risk factors like depressive and anxiety disorders, increased child care, and familial and home care responsibility have been shown to increase risk for cardiovascular disease events in women more so than in men, and disproportionately affect women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds. Despite this, minimal interventions to address differential risk have been proposed. Furthermore, disparities in treatment and outcomes that disadvantage minority women persist. The limited improvement in outcomes over time, especially among non-Hispanic Black women, is an area that requires further research and active interventions.

Summary

Understanding the lack of representation in cardiovascular trials, differential cardiovascular risk, and disparities in treatment and outcomes among women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds highlights opportunities for improving cardiovascular care among this particularly vulnerable population.

Race/Ethnicity and the Prognostic Implications of Coronary Artery Calcium for All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: The Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium

Background

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) events; however, less is known about how its prognostic implications vary by race/ethnicity.

Methods and Results

A total of 38 277 whites, 1621 Asians, 977 blacks, and 1349 Hispanics from the CAC Consortium (mean age 55 years, 35% women) were followed over a median of 11.7 years. Modeling CAC in continuous and categorical (CAC=0; CAC 1–99; CAC 100–399; CAC ≥400) forms, we assessed its predictive value for all‐cause and CVD mortality by race/ethnicity using Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing‐risk regression, respectively. We also assessed the impact of race/ethnicity on risk within individual CAC strata, using whites as the reference. Models were adjusted for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Increased CAC was associated with higher total and CVD mortality risk in all race/ethnicity groups, including Asians. However, the risk gradient with increasing CAC was more pronounced in blacks and Hispanics. In Fine and Gray subdistribution hazards models adjusted for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and CAC (continuous), blacks (subdistribution hazard ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval, 2.5–4.8) and Hispanics (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval, 1.6–3.2) showed greater risk of CVD mortality when compared with whites, while Asians had risk similar to whites. These race/ethnic differences persisted when CAC=0.

Conclusions

CAC predicts all‐cause and CVD mortality in all studied race/ethnicity groups, including Asians and Hispanics, who may be poorly represented by the Pooled Cohort Equations. Blacks and Hispanics may have greater mortality risk compared with whites and Asians after adjusting for atherosclerosis burden, with potential implications for US race/ethnic healthcare disparities research.

The Evolving View of Coronary Artery Calcium: A Personalized Shared Decision-Making Tool in Primary Prevention

The 2018 American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) cholesterol management guideline considers current evidence on coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing while incorporating learnings from previous guidelines. More than any previous guideline update, this set encourages CAC testing to facilitate shared decision making and to individualize treatment plans. An important novelty is further separation of risk groups. Specifically, the current prevention guideline recommends CAC testing for primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention among asymptomatic patients in borderline and intermediate risk groups (5–7.5% and 7.5–20% 10-year ASCVD risk). This additional sub-classification reflects the uncertainty of treatment strategies for patients broadly considered to be “intermediate risk,” as treatment recommendations for high and low risk groups are well established. The 2018 guidelines, for the first time, clearly recognize the significance of a CAC score of zero, where intensive statin therapy is likely not beneficial and not routinely recommended in selected patients. Lifestyle modification should be the focus in patients with CAC = 0. In this article, we review the recent AHA/ACC cholesterol management guideline and contextualize the transition of CAC testing to a guideline-endorsed decision aid for borderline-to-intermediate risk patients who seek more definitive risk assessment as part of a clinician-patient discussion. CAC testing can reduce low-value treatment and focus primary prevention therapy on those most likely to benefit.

Trends in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol blood values between 2012 and 2017 suggest sluggish adoption of the recent 2013 treatment guidelines

BACKGROUND

Over a 14-year period, age-adjusted high total cholesterol (≥240 mg/dL) in the United States declined from 18.3% in 1999 to 2000 to 11.0% in 2013 to 2014, coinciding with the 2001 National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP)-III guidelines that endorsed low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol blood value goals. Statin treatment recommendations were revised by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) in November 2013 to a "risk-based prescription" approach that did not utilize blood cholesterol values. This increased dosage and expanded the statin-eligible population by an estimated 12.8 million US adults. These changes should further lower total and LDL cholesterol concentrations nationally.

METHODS

We examined data from 507 752 patients nationally aged ≥16 years whose fasting bloods were sent to Boston Heart Diagnostics for direct LDL-cholesterol measurements. Between 2012 and 2017, age-adjusted concentrations were examined by analysis of covariance and LDL-cholesterol ≥160 mg/dL by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Contrary to expectations, age-adjusted mean LDL-cholesterol concentrations (±SE, mg/dL) increased significantly (P < 10^-16 ) in men (2012:113.8 ± 0.3; 2013:115.3 ± 0.2; 2014:114.7 ± 0.2; 2015:116.0 ± 0.2; 2016:117.6 ± 0.2; and 2017:117.1 ± 0.2 mg/dL) and women (2012:119.5 ± 0.3; 2013:120.7 ± 0.2; 2014:119.8 ± 0.02; 2015:120.8 ± 0.2; 2016:122.7 ± 0.1; and 2017:123.8 ± 0.2 mg/dL). The percentage with LDL-cholesterol ≥160 mg/dL also increased significantly (P < 10^-9 ) in men and women. Similar results were obtained for ages 40 to 75 years olds (corresponding to ACC/AHA guidelines).

CONCLUSION

These results provide additional evidence that declining blood LDL-cholesterol levels observed following the ATP-III recommendations, did not further decline (actually increased) following the 2013 ACC/AHA recommendations.

Chest Pain, Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk, and Cardiology Referral in Primary Care

Background: The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk estimate is recommended by cardiologists for determining risk of a cardiac event. However, the majority of patients presenting to primary care with chest pain have noncardiac etiologies. Therefore, we determined if high versus low ASCVD risk was associated with primary care physicians’ referral to cardiology in patients with and without chest pain. Methods: Deidentified electronic health record (EHR) data was obtained from 5795 patients treated in academic primary care clinics from 2008 to 2015. Referral to cardiology was defined by an EHR code, chest pain was defined by ICD-9-CM code (786.5) and ASCVD was modeled as high versus low risk. Separate logistic regression models were computed to estimate the association between chest pain and referral to cardiology, ASCVD risk and referral, and both chest pain and ASCVD risk and referral with adjustment for potential confounding factors. Results: More patients with (n = 95, 7.8%) versus without (n = 75, 2.0%) chest pain were referred to cardiology (P < .0001). Separate unadjusted models revealed chest pain and high versus low ASCVD risk were significantly associated with referral (odds ratio [OR] = 4.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.07-5.73 and OR = 1.41; 95% CI 1.04-1.91, respectively). After adjusting for ASCVD risk and confounders, chest pain but not high ASCVD risk remained significantly associated with referral (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.24-2.47 and OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.72-1.82, respectively). Conclusions: In primary care patients presenting with chest pain, ASCVD risk scores are not associated with referral to cardiology. Overall, less than 8% of patients with chest pain were referred. While there is no evidence to indicate excessive referral to cardiology, we posit that implementing ASCVD risk tools in decision aids could contribute to referring those most in need of cardiology care.

Providing Evidence for Subclinical CVD in Risk Assessment

When the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) began, the Framingham risk score was the preferred tool for 10-year global coronary heart disease risk assessment; however, the Framingham risk score had limitations including derivation in a homogenous population lacking racial and ethnic diversity and exclusive reliance on traditional risk factors without consideration of most subclinical disease measures. MESA was designed to study the prognostic value of subclinical atherosclerosis and other risk markers in a multiethnic population. In a series of landmark publications, MESA demonstrated that measures of subclinical cardiovascular disease add significant prognostic value to the traditional Framingham risk variables. In head-to-head studies comparing these markers, MESA established that the coronary artery calcium score may be the single best predictor of coronary heart disease risk. Results from MESA have directly influenced recent prevention guidelines including the recommendations on risk assessment and cholesterol-lowering therapy. The MESA study has published its own risk score, which allows for the calculation of 10-year risk of coronary heart disease before and after knowledge of a coronary artery calcium score.

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in Current Clinical Practice: How to Define Its Value?

OPINION STATEMENT

Detecting subclinical atherosclerosis with coronary artery calcium (CAC) is promising for identifying individuals at risk for cardiovascular events and appears to be a robust tool for guiding initiation of appropriate and timely primary prevention strategies. However, how do we best determine its clinical value? It is clear that traditional risk prediction models based primarily on age, gender, and risk factors are insufficient for ideal personalization of risk estimation. It is now well established from epidemiologic studies that CAC adds to traditional risk scores for a more accurate risk prediction. However, such traditional epidemiology studies have limitations in establishing "clinical value," and they must be supplemented by additional data before being translated into strong recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Fortunately, over the last few years, the research around CAC has matured to include data supporting enhanced clinician-patient risk discussions, shared decision-making, flexible risk factor treatment goals, specific clinical decision algorithms, as well as favorable cost-effectiveness analyses. We had moved from a time when we asked "if CAC adds to the risk score" to a time when we are asking "does CAC facilitate a shared decision-making model matching risk, treatment, and patient preferences?" A new risk calculator incorporating CAC into global risk scoring, and 2017 guidelines on the use of CAC published by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), reflect this new approach. In this article, we review the recent transition to this more clinically relevant CAC research that may support a stronger recommendation for its use in future prevention guidelines.

Clinical indications for coronary artery calcium scoring in asymptomatic patients: Expert consensus statement from the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

This expert consensus statement summarizes the available data regarding the prognostic value of CAC in the asymptomatic population and its ability to refine individual risk prediction, addresses the limitations identified in the current traditional risk factor-based treatment strategies recommended by the 2013 ACC/AHA Prevention guidelines including use of the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Recommendation Statement for Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults. It provides CAC based treatment recommendations both within the context of the shared decision making model espoused by the 2013 ACC/AHA Prevention guidelines and independent of these guidelines.

Framingham Risk Score and Estimated 10-Year Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction by a Short-Term Yoga-Based LifeStyle Intervention

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a short-term yoga-based lifestyle intervention program in lowering Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

This was a single-arm, pre-post interventional study including data from a historical cohort with low to moderate risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It was conducted in a tertiary-care hospital. Participants with low (0 or 1 CVD risk factors) to moderately high risk (10-year risk between 10% and 20% and two or more CVD risk factors) were included. Participants with previously diagnosed CVD, defined as a history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident, were excluded from the analysis. However, those with controlled hypertension were included. Intervention included a pretested short-term yoga-based lifestyle intervention, which included asanas (physical postures), pranayama (breathing exercises), meditation, relaxation techniques, stress management, group support, nutrition awareness program, and individualized advice. The intervention was for 10 days, spread over 2 weeks. However, participants were encouraged to include it in their day-to-day life. Outcomes included changes in FRS, and estimated 10-year CVD risk from baseline to week 2. A gender-based subgroup analysis was also done, and correlation between changes in FRS and cardiovascular risk factors was evaluated.

RESULTS

Data for 554 subjects were screened, and 386 subjects (252 females) were included in the analysis. There was a significant reduction in FRS (p < 0.001) and estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk (p < 0.001) following the short-term yoga-based intervention. There was a strong positive correlation between reduction in FRS and serum total cholesterol (r = 0.60; p < 0.001). There was a moderate positive correlation between reduction in FRS and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r = 0.58; p < 0.001), and a weak but positive correlation between reduction in FRS and triglycerides (r = 0.26; p ≤ 0.001), serum very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r = 0.29; p < 0.001), and systolic blood pressure (r = 0.20; p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This yoga-based lifestyle intervention program significantly reduced the CVD risk, as shown by lowered FRS and estimated 10-year CVD risk. Further testing of this promising intervention is warranted in the long term.

Personalizing Treatment: Between Primary and Secondary Prevention

Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the management of patients with elevated blood cholesterol increasingly emphasize assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in deciding when to initiate pharmacotherapy. The decision to treat is based primarily on mathematical integration of traditional risk factors, including age, sex, race, lipid values, systolic blood pressure, hypertension therapy, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. Advanced risk testing is selectively endorsed for patients when the decision to treat is otherwise uncertain, or more broadly interpreted as those patients who are at so-called "intermediate risk" of ASCVD events using traditional risk factors alone. These new guidelines also place new emphasis on a clinician-patient risk discussion, a process of shared decision making in which patient and physician consider the potential benefits of treatment, risk of adverse events, and patient preferences before making a final decision to initiate treatment. Advanced risk testing is likely to play an increasingly important role in this process as weaknesses in exclusive reliance on traditional risk factors are recognized, new non-statin therapies become available, and guidelines are iteratively updated. Comparative efficacy studies of the various advanced risk testing options suggest that coronary artery calcium scoring is most strongly predictive of ASCVD events. Most importantly, coronary artery calcium scoring appears to identify an important subgroup of patients with advanced subclinical atherosclerosis-who are "between" primary and secondary prevention-that might benefit from the most aggressive lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy.

Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction in the HIV Outpatient Study

BACKGROUND

 Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction tools are often applied to populations beyond those in which they were designed when validated tools for specific subpopulations are unavailable.

METHODS

 Using data from 2283 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults aged ≥18 years, who were active in the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS), we assessed performance of 3 commonly used CVD prediction models developed for general populations: Framingham general cardiovascular Risk Score (FRS), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort equations (PCEs), and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) high-risk equation, and 1 model developed in HIV-infected persons: the Data Collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) study equation. C-statistics assessed model discrimination and the ratio of expected to observed events (E/O) and Hosmer-Lemeshow χ² P value assessed calibration.

RESULTS

 From January 2002 through September 2013, 195 (8.5%) HOPS participants experienced an incident CVD event in 15 056 person-years. The FRS demonstrated moderate discrimination and was well calibrated (C-statistic: 0.66, E/O: 1.01, P = .89). The PCE and D:A:D risk equations demonstrated good discrimination but were less well calibrated (C-statistics: 0.71 and 0.72 and E/O: 0.88 and 0.80, respectively; P < .001 for both), whereas SCORE performed poorly (C-statistic: 0.59, E/O: 1.72; P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

 Only the FRS accurately estimated risk of CVD events, while PCE and D:A:D underestimated risk. Although these models could potentially be used to rank US HIV-infected individuals at higher or lower risk for CVD, the models may fail to identify substantial numbers of HIV-infected persons with elevated CVD risk who could potentially benefit from additional medical treatment.

Lipid Management Guidelines from the Departments of Veteran Affairs and Defense: A Critique

In December 2014, the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (VA/DoD) published an independent clinical practice guideline for the management of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease risk, adding to the myriad of recently published guidelines on this topic. The VA/DoD guidelines differ from major US guidelines published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association in 2013 in the following ways: recommending moderate-intensity statins for the majority of patients with statin indications regardless of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk; advocating for limited on-treatment lipid monitoring; and deemphasizing ancillary data, such as coronary artery calcium testing, to improve atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation. In the context of manifold treatment recommendations from numerous guideline committees, the VA/DoD recommendations may generate further confusion and mixed messages among healthcare providers about the optimal treatment of dyslipidemia. In this review, we critically appraise the VA/DoD recommendations with a focus on the evidence base for each area where the VA/DoD guidelines differ from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. We also call for harmonization of lipid treatment guidelines to ensure high-quality and consistent care for patients with, and at risk for, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.