Pagidipati, Neha J.

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Background: Evaluation of obese patients with suspected CAD is challenging because obesity is a CV risk factor, but adiposity itself may mimic symptoms of CAD and reduce the accuracy of diagnostic testing. Optimal testing strategies in obese patients are not known. Methods: Patients with stable symptoms suggestive of cardiac ischemia from the PROMISE trial (n=9230) were classified according to BMI. Providers specified a functional test modality prior to stratified randomization to functional (stress testing) or anatomical (CTA) testing. We assessed relationships between BMI, physician’s preference of functional test, test positivity and results of catheter angiography (cath) using logistic regression. Results: Providers were more likely to choose SPECT over other functional tests as BMI increased (OR 1.04 per unit increase in BMI above 27, p<0.001). In patients with BMI ≥ 35 vs. < 35, the rate of positivity with CTA was similar (10% vs. 12%; see Table). The same was true for stress echo and stress ECG (positivity 8-13%, p>0.8 for both). In contrast, SPECT was significantly more likely to be positive in those with BMI ≥ 35 vs. <35 (18% vs. 13%; p=0.001). The likelihood of finding obstructive CAD at cath did not differ with BMI ≥ 35 vs. <35 in patients having CTA (59% vs. 52%, p=0.22), but among SPECT patients, positivity was only 29% with BMI ≥ 35 compared to 52% with BMI < 35 (p=0.005; Table). Conclusions: Increasing levels of obesity were associated with stronger physician preference for SPECT over other noninvasive tests. In patients receiving SPECT, higher levels of obesity were associated with a higher rate of positive results, but a lower cath yield for obstructive CAD. In contrast, in patients receiving CTA, positivity rates and cath yield did not vary by BMI. Obesity appears to significantly influence provider decision-making with regard to noninvasive test choice, probability of abnormal test results and probability of finding obstructive disease at cath.

Background: Patients evaluated for coronary artery disease have a range of symptoms and underlying risk. The relationships between patient-described symptoms, clinician conclusions, and subsequent clinical management and outcomes remain incompletely described. Methods: In this secondary analysis, we examined the association between 4 types of presenting symptoms (substernal/left-sided chest pain, other chest/neck/arm pain, dyspnea, and other symptoms) and patient risk, noninvasive test results, clinical management, and outcomes for stable outpatients randomized in the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate differences in noninvasive test result, all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction by symptom type. Results: Among 9996 patients, most presented with chest pain (47.2% substernal, 29.2% other), followed by dyspnea (14.9%), and other symptoms (8.7%). Patients with dyspnea were older (median age 63 versus 60, P ≤0.02) with higher baseline risk (78.2% with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease >7.5% versus 67.6%, P ≤0.02). Using patients with substernal chest pain as a reference, there was no difference in noninvasive test positivity across symptom groups (all P >0.05), but test-positive patients with dyspnea (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]) or other symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47–0.90]) were less likely to be referred for cardiac catheterization. While symptom type alone was not associated with outcomes, symptom presentation with chest pain or dyspnea did modify the association between a positive noninvasive test and clinical outcome (interaction P =0.025 for both all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/MI). Conclusions: Among low-risk outpatients evaluated for coronary artery disease, typicality of symptoms was not closely associated with higher baseline risk but was related to differences in processes of care and the prognostic value of a positive test. Adverse events were not associated with clinician risk estimates or symptoms alone. These unexpected findings highlight the limitation of relying solely on symptom presentation or clinician risk estimation to evaluate patients for suspected coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Introduction: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. We hypothesized that Lp(a) testing occurs in a different population than calculated low density lipoprotein (LDL-C) testing alone, and that elevated Lp(a) is associated with greater lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) initiation and cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods: We used data from 11 health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. We created two cohorts based on lab tests from Jan 1, 2015 to Dec 31, 2019: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. We used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) levels (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and initiation of LLT within 3 months; and cox proportional hazards to evaluate Lp(a) levels and time to all-cause hospitalization and the composite of MI, revascularization and ischemic stroke hospitalization. Results: Overall, 20,551 patients (0.06% per year) had Lp(a) tests, with median Lp(a) value 17.5mg/dL (Q1, Q3: 7.0, 56.0). Compared with the LDL-C cohort (N=82,204), the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) or multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of LLT initiation (Figure 1). Elevated Lp(a) was not significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization; however, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL was correlated with composite CV hospitalization compared with Lp(a) < 50mg/dL [adj HR (95% CI): 1.24 (1.06-1.44), p=0.006]. Conclusions: Lp(a) testing occurs more often in adults with ASCVD and multiple CV events, but testing is infrequent. Elevated Lp(a) was associated with LLT initiation, including niacin, despite lack of evidence of CV benefit. There was an association between elevated Lp(a) and CV hospitalization outcomes.

Background: Inconclusive noninvasive tests complicate the care of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but their prevalence and impact on management, outcomes, and costs are not well described. Methods: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) patients were randomized to stress testing (n=4533) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA; n=4677). We assessed relationships between inconclusive results, subsequent testing, a composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina), and healthcare expenditures. Results: Overall, 8.0% of tests were inconclusive (9.7% stress, 6.4% CTA). Compared with negative tests, inconclusive tests were more often referred to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P <0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P <0.001), and composite outcomes were higher for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P =0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P =0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P <0.001). Twenty-four–month costs were higher for inconclusive tests than negative tests by $2905 (stress) and $4030 (CTA). Conclusions: Among patients with stable chest pain undergoing a noninvasive test, inconclusive results occurred in 6% of CTA and 10% of stress tests. Compared with those with conclusive negative tests, individuals with inconclusive results more often underwent subsequent testing, had increased medical costs, and experienced worse outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Objectives To test the relationship between increasing severity of obesity, calculated risk and observed outcomes. Methods Patients with symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=10 003) were stratified according to body mass index (BMI). We compared risk factors, pooled risk scores and physicians’ perception of risk. Cox regression tested the association between BMI and (1) presence of obstructive CAD and (2) composite clinical endpoints (death, cardiovascular death, unstable angina hospitalisation and myocardial infarction). Results BMI was ≥30 kg/m2 in 48% of patients and ≥35 in 20%. Increasingly obese patients were younger, female and non-smoking but with higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, black race and sedentary lifestyle. Pooled risk estimates of CAD were highest in those with mid-range BMI. In contrast, physicians’ estimation of the likelihood of significant CAD based on clinical impression increased progressively with BMI. For a 10% increase in the Diamond-Forrester probability of CAD, the adjusted OR for obstructive CAD was 1.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5) in patients with BMI <35, but only 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3) in those with BMI ≥35 (interaction p<0.001). Framingham Risk Score increased across increasing BMI categories. However, there was a strong and consistent inverse relationship between degree of obesity and all three composite clinical endpoints over a median 25 months of follow-up. Conclusions Despite perceptions of higher risk and higher risk scores, increasingly obese patients had obstructive CAD less frequently than predicted and had fewer adverse clinical outcomes. There is a need for risk assessment tools and guidelines that account for obesity. Trial registration number NCT01174550.

Background The impact of diabetes mellitus on the clinical presentation and noninvasive test ( NIT ) results among stable outpatients presenting with symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease ( CAD ) has not been well described. Methods and Results The PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial enrolled 10 003 patients with known diabetic status, of whom 8966 were tested as randomized and had interpretable NIT results (1908 with diabetes mellitus, 21%). Differences in symptoms and NIT results were evaluated using logistic regression. Patients with diabetes mellitus (versus without) were similar in age (median 61 versus 60 years) and sex (female 54% versus 52%), had a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities, and had a similar likelihood of nonchest pain symptoms (29% versus 27%). The Diamond‐Forrester/Coronary Artery Surgery Study score predicted that patients with diabetes mellitus (versus without) had similar likelihood of obstructive CAD (low 1.8% versus 2.7%; intermediate 92.3% versus 92.6%; high 5.9% versus 4.7%). Physicians estimated patients with diabetes mellitus to have a higher likelihood of obstructive CAD (low to very low: 28.3% versus 40.1%; intermediate 63.9% versus 55.9%; high to very high 7.8% versus 4.0%). Patients with diabetes mellitus (versus without) were more likely to have a positive NIT result (15% versus 11%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.23; P =0.01). Conclusions Stable chest pain patients with and without diabetes mellitus have similar presentation and pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD ; however, physicians perceive that patients with diabetes mellitus have a higher pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD , an assessment supported by increased risk of a positive NIT . Further evaluation of diabetes mellitus's influence on CAD assessment is required. Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01174550.