Leja, Monika

BACKGROUND: While health systems have implemented resources to improve lipid management in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the population-level effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: Electronic health record data from patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, across 16 US academic health systems were analyzed. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (defined by diagnosis and procedure codes) was established on or before the index date defined as the date of the most recent LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) or the last day of the study period for those without an LDL-C available. Systems were surveyed to identify lipid management programs (eg, prevention/lipid clinic, electronic health record–based tools, and lipid management algorithms). Sequential multilevel multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to (1) assess the system-level association between an LDL-C <70 mg/dL and the presence of lipid management programs, adjusting for patient-level demographic and clinical characteristics, and (2) whether system-level uptake of statin or nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. RESULTS: We included 1 738 042 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (median, 88 365 per system; range, 17 086–2 48 371). About 81% of the health systems had prevention or lipid clinics. The proportion of those on statins ranged from 31.0% to 60.4% across health systems (median, 46.3%). Lower proportions were observed in the use of high-intensity statins (16.2%–33.1%), nonstatins (2.6%–8.1%), and combination lipid-lowering therapy (1.7%–6.3%). Among those with an LDL-C level available (n=890 521), 42.5% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, ranging 35.8% to 49.4% across systems. There was no association between the odds of achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL and health system lipid management algorithm, prevention clinics/lipid clinics, or electronic health record–based tools. Neither system-level high-intensity statin utilization nor nonstatin use was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in lipid management resources and lipid-lowering therapy use across systems, many did not reach an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and there was low uptake of lipid-lowering therapy. Innovative implementation strategies are needed for system-level lipid management.

Background: Nationally, many ASCVD patients fail to achieve an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and uptake of both statin and non-statin therapies is low. The degree to which this varies across health systems is less clear. Methods: A cross sectional analysis was performed where lipid levels and lipid lowering therapies (LLT) were assessed using electronic health record data in patients with a previous diagnosis of ASCVD. The data was obtained across 14 US healthcare systems between 1/1/2021-12/31/2022. Proportions of patients with an active prescription of any statin, high intensity statin, ezetimibe, PCSK9i, and combination therapy (two or more agents) within 395 days of the most recent LDL-C value (index date) was evaluated overall and by participating site. Additionally, the proportion of patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at the index date was also assessed. Results: Across 14 health systems, 1,118,623 patients with ASCVD were identified (median 61,840 per health system, range 8,161-182,315). Overall, 675,776 (60.4%) had an LDL-C level in the past year (range 39.1% - 70.8%). Of those with a lipid level, achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL ranged from 34.6-47.2%. In total, 42.6% were on any statin, 20.1% were on a high intensity statin, 4.3% on ezetimibe, and 1.2% on a PCSK9i. Only 2.9% were on combination therapy of a statin with ezetimibe or a PCSK9i. Variability was seen across health systems in utilization of each of these therapies, however even in the highest performing health systems, LLT uptake and achievement of LDL-C < 70mg/dL remained low ( Figure). Conclusion: Variability in utilization of LLT in ASCVD patients between health systems suggests that system-level factors may impact achieving guideline-based LDL-C goals. Despite the variability, the highest proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C <70mg/dL remained under 50% indicating the need for aggressive implementation efforts.

BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.

Abstract In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils of the American College of Cardiology offers recommendations to clinicians regarding the cardiovascular care of cardio-oncology patients in this expert consensus statement. Cardio-oncology patients—individuals with an active or prior cancer history and with or at risk of cardiovascular disease—are a rapidly growing population who are at increased risk of infection, and experiencing severe and/or lethal complications by COVID-19. Recommendations for optimizing screening and monitoring visits to detect cardiac dysfunction are discussed. In addition, judicious use of multimodality imaging and biomarkers are proposed to identify myocardial, valvular, vascular, and pericardial involvement in cancer patients. The difficulties of diagnosing the etiology of cardiovascular complications in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are outlined, along with weighing the advantages against risks of exposure, with the modification of existing cardiovascular treatments and cardiotoxicity surveillance in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract BackgroundRe-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers’ opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology , American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty.Results1,415 providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p=0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p=<0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p=0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1,097) (p=<0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies.ConclusionsThese results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.Appendix: Link to the Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C8ZDYNW

Introduction . Primary cardiac sarcoma (PCS) has a poor prognosis compared to other sarcomas due to late presentation, challenging resection, incidence of metastases, and limited efficacy of systemic therapies. Methods . A medical record search engine was queried to identify patients diagnosed with PCS from 1992 to 2017 at the University of Michigan. Results . Thirty-nine patients with PCS had a median age of 41 years (range 2–77). Common histologies were angiosarcoma (AS, 14), high-grade undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS, 10), and leiomyosarcoma (LMS, 5). Sites of origin were left atrium (18), right atrium (16), and pericardium (5). AS was the most common right-sided tumor; UPS was more common on the left. Eighteen patients presented with metastases involving lung (10), bone (7), liver (5), and brain (4). Twenty-five patients underwent resection, achieving 3 R 0 resections. Patients received a median of 2 (1–6) systemic therapies. Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (range 0–79). Median OS was 14.0 months and 8.2 months in patients who did or did not undergo resection, respectively ( p = 0.018 ). Brain metastases occurred in 12 (31%) patients, 9 (75%) of whom had left heart tumors, at a median of 8.5 months (range 0–75) from diagnosis. Median OS was 5.6 months (range 0–30) after the diagnosis of brain metastases. Conclusions . PCS portends a poor prognosis, because of difficulty in obtaining complete resection of sarcoma, advanced stage at diagnosis, and high risk of brain metastases. Providers should be aware of the increased risk of brain metastases and consider brain imaging at diagnosis and follow-up.