Yang, Eugene

Abstract Aims Routine aspirin use for primary prevention yields modest cardiovascular benefit but increases bleeding risk in average-risk adults. Whether individuals with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels or high-risk LPA variants derive greater benefit remains uncertain. Methods and results Following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central for studies of adults without ASCVD, elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL), high-risk LPA genotypes, or elevated genetic risk scores, comparing aspirin vs. no aspirin use. Random-effects meta-analyses using restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) estimation with Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman (HKSJ) adjustment were used to pool hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In six studies, 6628 participants were included. Pooled random effects showed no significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with aspirin (HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.31–1.17; P = 0.1) or clinical bleeding events (HR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.83–1.87; P = 0.18). Subgroup analyses showed a nonsignificant reduction MACE among elevated Lp(a) (HR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.16 to 2.49; P = 0.284) and statistically significant reduction among LPA rs3798220 carriers (HR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.71; P = 0.003), though this finding was not consistent in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Among adults without ASCVD but with elevated Lp(a) or high-risk LPA genotypes, aspirin use did not confer a statistically significant cardiovascular benefit and was associated with numerically higher bleeding risk. The apparent reduction seen in rs3798220 carriers was inconsistent and likely reflects small-sample bias.

Abstract Background The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus among young adults has been increasing over the past few decades. There are limited data on contemporary national cardiovascular mortality rates in young adults with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods We queried the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide‐Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database for patients aged 15 to 44 years from 1999 to 2019 in the primary analysis. A secondary analysis included data from 2020 to 2022 to examine the effect of the COVID‐19 pandemic. We analysed patients in whom cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were listed as the main cause of death and DM as a contributing cause of death. In calculating age‐adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100 000 individuals, we used CVD mortality in young adults with comorbid diabetes as the numerator and the overall population as the denominator. We determined temporal trends by estimating the average annual percent change (AAPC) using the Joinpoint regression program. Results Among 3 309 079 individuals aged 15–44 years who died, 30 978 deaths were due to CVD with comorbid DM listed as a contributing cause. The overall AAMR increased from 1.08 per 100 000 individuals in 1999 to 1.23 per 100 000 individuals in 2019, with an average APC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.31–1.20). Compared with 1999, the percentage increase in CVD deaths in 2019 among young adults with comorbid DM was +6.2%, whereas a decrease of 19.9% was observed among those without comorbid DM. Males had a higher AAMR than females (1.60 vs. 0.97). Non‐Hispanic Black individuals and non‐Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals had the highest AAMRs of 2.99 and 2.89, respectively. The AAMR was higher in rural regions compared to urban areas (1.63 vs. 1.23). The overall AAMR increased markedly from 1.23 in 2019 to 1.60 in 2022, with a similar pattern observed across demographic subgroups. Conclusion Our study reveals a rising trend in CVD mortality in young adults with DM as a contributing cause. Males, non‐Hispanic Black individuals, and individuals from rural regions had higher AAMR than their counterparts. This warrants the development of specific healthcare policies aimed at these at‐risk populations. Lay summary Our study shows that cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths are increasing in young adults with diabetes mellitus listed as a contributing cause.

Introduction: Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and coronary artery calcium score (CAC) are well-established risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the interaction between these risk factors on CHD risk has not been well-studied. We investigated the association between ApoB levels and CAC with CHD risk. Methods: We analyzed 4,649 participants from the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis cohort (median follow-up 13.9 years) without baseline CHD or statin use. High ApoB was defined as ≥120 mg/dL. Participants were divided into 6 groups; group 1: CAC = 0 with normal ApoB, group 2: CAC = 0 with high ApoB, group 3: CAC 1-99 with normal ApoB, group 4: CAC 1-99 with high ApoB, group 5: CAC ≥100 with normal ApoB, group 6: CAC ≥100 with high ApoB. CHD was defined as myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or CHD death. Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the relationship between ApoB, CAC, and time to first CHD event. Results: In an adjusted model, high ApoB, CAC (1-99), and CAC (≥100) were independently associated with CHD (HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.11; HR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.78, 3.64; and HR: 4.41; 95% CI: 3.08, 6.31, respectively). Compared to group 1 (CAC 0 with normal ApoB), CAC 0 and high ApoB (group 2) was not associated with increased risk of CHD (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.59, 2.23). However, a statistically significant greater risk of CHD was observed in those with CAC 1-99 and normal ApoB (group 3) (HR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.37, 3.28), CAC 1-99 and high ApoB (group 4) (HR: 4.12; 95% CI: 2.42, 7.00), CAC ≥100 and normal ApoB (group 5) (HR: 4.20; 95% CI: 2.78, 6.34), CAC ≥100 and high ApoB (group 6) (HR: 5.72; 95% CI: 3.40, 9.63). Conclusions: In this analysis, ApoB and CAC are independently associated with CHD risk. Individuals with high ApoB and CAC ≥100 had the highest risk of CHD. In contrast, individuals with CAC = 0 and high ApoB had no significant increase in CHD risk compared to individuals with normal ApoB levels. These findings suggest that ApoB and CAC may be complementary tools for CHD risk stratification in the context of primary prevention.

Background: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are well-established risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Recent evidence suggests that high Lp(a) levels may increase the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with diabetes, raising the question of whether similar interactions exist between Lp(a) and metabolic syndrome. We aimed to evaluate the joint association of Lp(a) and MetS with incident CHD risk in a large, multi-ethnic, prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed 6,664 participants from the MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) cohort (median follow-up 14.0 years) without baseline CHD. MetS was defined as ≥3 of the following criteria: waist circumference ≥102 cm (men), or ≥88 cm (women), triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL or use of a fibrate medication, HDL-C <40 (men) or <50 (women) or use of a fibrate medication, SBP ≥130 mm Hg and/or DBP ≥85 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive medication, fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL or use of antidiabetic medication (4). Elevated Lp(a) was defined as a level ≥50 mg/dL. CHD was defined as myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or CHD death. Participants were divided into four groups: group 1: Normal Lp(a) without MetS, group 2: elevated Lp(a) without MetS, group 3: normal Lp(a) with MetS, group 4: elevated Lp(a) with MetS. Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the relationship between Lp(a), MetS, and time to CHD. Results: In an adjusted model, log [Lp(a)] and MetS were both independently associated with CHD (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.25) and (HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.27). Compared to the reference group (normal Lp(a) without MetS), those with elevated Lp(a) without MetS (group 2) did not have increased risk of CHD (HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.80). However, those with normal Lp(a) with MetS (group 3) had greater risk of CHD (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.18, 2.05). The highest risk for CHD were in those with elevated Lp(a) with MetS (group 4) (HR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.66, 3.37). Conclusions: In this analysis. elevated Lp(a) and MetS independently increase CHD risk. MetS alone significantly increases risk, whereas elevated Lp(a) without MetS does not demonstrate a significant effect. However, their combination confers the highest risk, suggesting a synergistic interaction. These results emphasize the value of assessing Lp(a) in individuals with MetS to improve cardiovascular risk stratification and guide targeted prevention.