Martin, Seth S

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 Although telehealth cardiac rehabilitation (CR) may improve access, there are concerns about its long‐term effectiveness and impact on equity as compared with in‐person CR. Our objective was to tailor a patient‐centered telehealth CR program for diverse populations. Methods CR patients and caregivers were recruited between January and September 2023 from 4 US academic medical centers. Participants engaged in human‐centered design sessions to iteratively refine a telehealth CR program. Sessions had planned topics, but there was variation across sites to account for site‐specific needs and participant feedback. Sessions were qualitatively analyzed using rapid template analysis with preselected behavioral science constructs and other emergent codes. Results The study included 21 participants (71% aged ≥60 years, 48% women, 62% non‐Hispanic White individuals; 90% CR patients, 10% CR caregivers). Participants thought that telehealth CR could be helpful for personalized support at home and convenience but recognized that technology is not always easy to use. Some expressed concerns about the safety of telehealth CR, especially at the beginning, and desired monitoring through a mobile device or video observation of exercise. Safety protocols and technology training were developed, which addressed concerns about telehealth CR. Opportunities for social support with telehealth CR were also desired. From these findings, an implementation toolkit was developed, including a graphic program description, safety plan, home exercise plan for during and after CR, and scripts for technology training and individual and group telehealth visits. Conclusions A patient‐centered telehealth CR program and implementation toolkit were systematically tailored to address the needs of diverse populations.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a guideline-recommended, multidisciplinary program of exercise training, risk factor management, and psychosocial counseling for people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is beneficial but underused and with substantial disparities in referral, access, and participation. The emergence of new virtual and remote delivery models has the potential to improve access to and participation in CR and ultimately improve outcomes for people with CVD. Although data suggest that new delivery models for CR have safety and efficacy similar to traditional in-person CR, questions remain regarding which participants are most likely to benefit from these models, how and where such programs should be delivered, and their effect on outcomes in diverse populations. In this review, we describe important gaps in evidence, identify relevant research questions, and propose strategies for addressing them. We highlight 4 research priorities: (1) including diverse populations in all CR research; (2) leveraging implementation methodologies to enhance equitable delivery of CR; (3) clarifying which populations are most likely to benefit from virtual and remote CR; and (4) comparing traditional in-person CR with virtual and remote CR in diverse populations using multicenter studies of important clinical, psychosocial, and cost-effectiveness outcomes that are relevant to patients, caregivers, providers, health systems, and payors. By framing these important questions, we hope to advance toward a goal of delivering high-quality CR to as many people as possible to improve outcomes in those with CVD.

Background Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated. Methods and Results In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL. Conclusions Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.