Kalra, Ankur

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.

Abstract Aim The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multi-Society Cholesterol Guidelines recommended the addition of non-statins to statin therapy for high-risk secondary prevention patients above a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) threshold of ≥70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). We compared effectiveness and safety of treatment to achieve lower (<70) vs. higher (≥70 mg/dL) LDL-C among patients receiving intensive lipid-lowering therapy (statins alone or plus ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors). Methods and results Eleven randomized controlled trials (130 070 patients), comparing intensive vs. less-intensive lipid-lowering therapy, with follow-up ≥6 months and sample size ≥1000 patients were selected. Meta-analysis was reported as random effects risk ratios (RRs) [95% confidence intervals] and absolute risk differences (ARDs) as incident cases per 1000 person-years. The median LDL-C levels achieved in lower LDL-C vs. higher LDL-C groups were 62 and 103 mg/dL, respectively. At median follow-up of 2 years, the lower LDL-C vs. higher LDL-C group was associated with significant reduction in all-cause mortality [ARD −1.56; RR 0.94 (0.89–1.00)], cardiovascular mortality [ARD −1.49; RR 0.90 (0.81–1.00)], and reduced risk of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). These benefits were achieved without increasing the risk of incident cancer, diabetes mellitus, or haemorrhagic stroke. All-cause mortality benefit in lower LDL-C group was limited to statin therapy and those with higher baseline LDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). However, the RR reduction in ischaemic and safety endpoints was independent of baseline LDL-C or drug therapy. Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that treatment to achieve LDL-C levels below 70 mg/dL using intensive lipid-lowering therapy can safely reduce the risk of mortality and MACE.

Background Aortic stenosis–related mortality might vary across demographic subsets, regions, and states in the United States. Methods and Results We reviewed the death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide‐Ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research database to examine aortic stenosis–related mortality trends from 2008 to 2018. Crude and age‐adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100 000 people and annual percentage change with 95% CIs were calculated. Between 2008 and 2018, AAMR reduced from 12.7 to 11.5 (average annual percentage change, −1.0 [95% CI, −1.5 to −0.5]), because of an accelerated decline between 2015 and 2018 (annual percentage change, −4.4 [95% CI, −6.0 to −2.7]). Older (aged >85 years), male, and White patients had higher death rates than younger, female, and non‐White patients, respectively. Although mortality reduction was similar across sexes, significant mortality reduction was limited to White patients only. The AAMRs were higher in rural than urban areas. States with AAMRs >90th percentile were distributed in the West and the Northeast, and <10th percentile in the South. The AAMRs for sex and race were highest in the West and lowest in the South. None of the states located in the Midwest showed a significant reduction in mortality. Mortality remained stable for hospital setting and nursing home/long‐term care facility, except that the number of deaths increased at home and hospice facility since 2014. Conclusions The reduction in mortality in patients with aortic stenosis was not consistent among demographic subsets and states. The substantial public health and economic implications call for determination of underlying clinical and socioeconomic factors to narrow the gap.

Abstract Aims To compare early de-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (1–3 months) to monotherapy with either P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin vs. 12 months DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods and results Electronic databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched through February 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted with random effects model. The main endpoints of interest were cardiovascular mortality and total bleeding events. Among seven trials (35 821 patients), 52.6% patients were presented with acute coronary syndrome. A total of 3359 patients and 14 530 patients were de-escalated to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12 months, compared with 12 months of DAPT, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality between 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% credible interval 0.29–2.43)], 3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy [HR 0.74 (0.39–1.46)], or 3 months of DAPT [HR 1.00 (0.54–1.86)] followed by aspirin monotherapy. Except for de-escalation of DAPT to aspirin monotherapy after 3 months [HR 0.75 (0.43–1.20)], de-escalation to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1 month [HR 0.28 (0.10–0.83)], or 3 months [HR 0.57 (0.33–0.98)] were associated with significant decrease in total bleeding events. There were no significant differences in terms of ischaemic endpoints among different DAPT strategies. Conclusion Early de-escalation of DAPT (1–3 months) to monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor instead of aspirin might be a safer and equally effective approach compared with 12 months of DAPT in patients with PCI and DES.