Shapiro, Michael D

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.

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.

Abstract Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high‐intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community‐dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site‐reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co‐secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

BACKGROUND The United States (US)‐Mexico border is a socioeconomically underserved area. We sought to investigate whether stroke‐related mortality varies between the US border and nonborder counties. METHODS AND RESULTS We used death certificates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide‐Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to examine stroke‐related mortality in border versus nonborder counties in California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. We measured average annual percent changes (AAPCs) in age‐adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100 000 between 1999 and 2018. Overall, AAMRs were higher for nonborder counties, older adults, men, and non‐Hispanic Black adults than their counterparts. Between 1999 and 2018, AAMRs reduced from 55.8 per 100 000 to 34.4 per 100 000 in the border counties (AAPC, −2.70) and 64.5 per 100 000 to 37.6 per 100 000 in nonborder counties (AAPC, −2.92). The annual percent change in AAMR initially decreased, followed by stagnation in both border and nonborder counties since 2012. The AAPC in AAMR decreased in all 4 states; however, AAMR increased in California’s border counties since 2012 (annual percent change, 3.9). The annual percent change in AAMR decreased for older adults between 1999 and 2012 for the border (−5.10) and nonborder counties (−5.01), followed by a rise in border counties and stalling in nonborder counties. Although the AAPC in AAMR decreased for both sexes, the AAPC in AAMR differed significantly for non‐Hispanic White adults in border (−2.69) and nonborder counties (−2.86). The mortality decreased consistently for all other ethnicities/races in both border and nonborder counties. CONCLUSIONS Stroke‐related mortality varied between the border and nonborder counties. Given the substantial public health implications, targeted interventions aimed at vulnerable populations are required to improve stroke‐related outcomes in the US‐Mexico border area.

Background: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. Methods: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One Year in ISCHEMIA Trial Screen Failures With INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014 to 2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and stress echocardiograms 1 year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with a history of angina who were not randomly assigned in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease status, and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between the changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and changes in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and we compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. Results: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 versus 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease, P <0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [interquartile range, 3–5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO ( P =0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants ( P =0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants, and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over 1 year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (ρ=0.029). Conclusions: Improvement in ischemia and angina were common in INOCA but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities similar to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02347215.