Virani, Salim S.

Abstract: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. While advances in treatment have improved outcomes, the greatest gains in public health will come from primary prevention. Risk stratification is the foundation of CVD prevention. Traditional tools, such as pooled cohort equations (PCEs) and SCORE2, do not capture non-traditional risk factors and individual variability, driving efforts to refine existing approaches. We critically discuss emerging risk determinants for primary CVD prevention. Coronary artery calcium scoring can reclassify CVD risk but has limitations related to cost, access, and unvalidated improvements in clinical endpoints. Biomarkers such as apolipoprotein B and lipoprotein(a) may identify residual risk beyond LDL-C, particularly in patients with lipid discordance, but remain underused due to uncertain thresholds and the lack of prospective triallevel outcome data. Trials of colchicine in primary prevention have yielded mixed results, making the role of targeting inflammation unclear in CVD prevention. Polygenic risk scores can stratify genetic risk but face challenges in sensitivity, specificity, and generalizability. Multiomics approaches, while offering the promise of deeper phenotyping, lack established clinical applications and consensus on when their use is appropriate. Artificial intelligence may allow better prediction across cohorts but requires broader validation. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, a marker of inflammation and age-related CVD risk, lacks evidence supporting routine screening or intervention in younger, asymptomatic individuals. The proliferation of new risk stratification tools poses a key challenge: determining when additional data meaningfully alter clinical decisions. Until robust outcome-based evidence emerges, risk enhancers should guide, but not dictate, therapy in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Mortality due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) has declined in countries with high socioeconomic development. Whether these declines extend to other settings, and whether socioeconomic development influences IHD mortality among men and women differently, is unknown. METHODS: We obtained annual data on sex-specific IHD mortality rates for countries/territories in the GBD study (Global Burden of Disease) from 1980 to 2021. The sociodemographic index (SI), a measure of socioeconomic development, was retrieved for each country/territory. Age-adjusted IHD mortality rates were modeled as a smooth function of sex, year, and SI. RESULTS: From 1980 to 2021, IHD mortality rates did not decrease in low SI settings for men or women. In contrast, mortality rates relative to 1980 declined by >25% in average SI settings (age-adjusted mortality per 100 000, 153–107 for women and 218–161 for men) and >50% in high SI settings (age-adjusted mortality per 100 000, 162–69 for women and 258–114 for men). Comparing the 20th versus 80th percentile of SI in 2021 (corresponding to lower versus higher socioeconomic development), mortality rates were 81% higher for men and 111% higher for women living in socioeconomically deprived settings ( P for difference by sex: 0.01), although absolute differences were larger in men. The association of low SI with higher IHD mortality was especially pronounced for mortality attributable to environmental/occupational risk factors (eg, particulate matter air pollution, lead exposure, and extremes of temperature), with mortality rates being 174% higher among women and 199% higher among men. CONCLUSIONS: Across the past 4 decades, low socioeconomic development was associated with no improvement in IHD mortality rates for men or women, in contrast to the large reductions observed in settings with high socioeconomic development. In contemporary settings, socioeconomic deprivation is associated with larger relative excess mortality in women and larger absolute excess mortality in men.

A growing body of research has begun to link exposure to environmental contaminants, such as heavy metals, with a variety of negative health outcomes. In this paper, we sought to review the current research describing the impact of certain common contaminant metals on cardiovascular (CV) health. We reviewed ten metals: lead, barium, nickel, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, zinc, and copper. After a literature review, we briefly summarized the routes of environmental exposure, pathophysiological mechanisms, CV health impacts, and exposure prevention and/or mitigation strategies for each metal. The resulting article discloses a broad spectrum of pathological significance, from relatively benign substances with little to no described effects on CV health, such as chromium and selenium, to substances with a wide-ranging and relatively severe spectrum of CV pathologies, such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead. It is our hope that this article will provide clinicians with a practical overview of the impact of these common environmental contaminants on CV health as well as highlight areas that require further investigation to better understand how these metals impact the incidence and progression of CV diseases.

Background Recruitment for clinical studies is challenging. To overcome barriers, investigators have previously established call-to-entry rates to assist in planning. However, rates specific to low-income minority populations are needed to account for additional barriers to enrolment these individuals face. Objective To obtain a call-to-entry rate in a low-income uninsured Hispanic population with chronic disease. Methods We used data from four of our randomised clinical studies to determine the call-to-entry rate for individuals (n=1075) with or at risk for type 2 diabetes: participants needed/potential participants contacted=recruitment rate (yield). Research staff contacted potential participants to enrol in a study that evaluated 6 month diabetes programmes at community clinics from 2015 to 2020. We recorded call-to-entry rates, reasons for declining the study, show rates, and attrition. Results The call-to-entry rate was 14.5%. Forty per cent of potential participants could not be contacted, and 30.6%, 19.1%, and 5.4% responded yes , no , and maybe , respectively. No show percentages were 54% for yes and 91.4% for maybe responders. The majority (61.6%) declined due to inability to attend; reasons to decline included work (43%), eligibility (18%), transportation (10%), out of town (9%), did not think they needed the programme (7%) and other/unknown (14%). Being a physician predicted inability to reach participants (adjusted OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.90). Attrition was 6.8%. Conclusions We described a call-to-entry rate and detailed recruitment data, including reasons to decline the study. This valuable information can assist investigators in study planning and overcoming enrolment barriers in low-income populations. Telehealth-based or strategies that limit transportation needs may increase participant involvement. Trial registration number NCT03394456 .

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines departed from prior ATPIII guidelines, recommending statin treatment based on patients’ predicted 10-year ASCVD risk and de-emphasizing LDL-C targets. However, the degree to which these new guidelines have been adopted by clinicians in community practice is unknown. Methods: We surveyed 522 clinicians in 133 cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices participating in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry. Clinicians were asked about their likelihood of prescribing statins in 4 hypothetical patient scenarios. Results: Among responders, 79% were physicians (60% cardiologists, 38% primary care or general practice, 2% endocrinology), 18% were advanced practice providers, and 3% trainees. When queried, 73% of providers reported primarily using the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines to guide lipid management. However, only half reported “often” or “always” calculating 10-year ASCVD risk to aid lipid management decisions for primary prevention. When presented with a high 10-year ASCVD risk patient (>15%) with a high LDL-C (150 mg/dL), 92% of providers recommended statins. Similarly, 83% of providers would use statins in a diabetic patient with a LDL-C of 140 mg/dL. Yet, only 37% reported they would prescribe a statin to an older adult (age 70) for whom guidelines recommend statin based on high 10-year ASCVD risk alone (10.1%). And up to 40% would prescribe a statin to a younger (age 40) with a low 10-year risk, but a high LDL (165 mg/dL) who would not otherwise meet criteria for statin therapy under the new guidelines. Cardiologists and non-cardiologists were similarly likely prescribe statins in most scenarios with the exception of to the younger patient with elevated LDL-C were cardiologists used statins more commonly (32% vs. 42%. OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p=0.02). Conclusion: Initial survey results show that while most clinicians claim adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines, reported practices are not always adherent to these guidelines. Providers do not always calculate 10-year ASCVD risk to guide lipid management and many do not prescribe statins to patients eligible based on 10-year ASCVD risk.

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: Prior ATPIII lipid guidelines recommended statin therapy for patients with clinical ASCVD to achieve low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets, while the 2013 ACC/AHA lipid guidelines recommend high-intensity statin therapy for all ASCVD patients. How closely these recommendations are followed in routine clinical practice is unknown. Methods: We evaluated statin use, intensity, and LDL-C values in 1,483 patients with ASCVD (coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral arterial disease) enrolled and seen serially at 62 geographically dispersed US cardiology and primary care clinics in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry between May - September 2015. Factors associated with high intensity statin use (atorvastatin ≥40 mg or rosuvastatin ≥20 mg daily) and LDL-C <70 mg/dL were evaluated in multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 1,483 ASCVD patients, 86.2% were on a statin, but only 31.4% were on a high-intensity statin. Overall, 64.0% had an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, but only 29.0% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Factors associated with high-intensity statin use in multivariable regression were younger age (OR 0.74 per 10 year increase, p<0.001, 95% CI 0.66-0.83), male sex (OR 1.69, p<0.001, 95% CI, 1.32-2.16), cerebrovascular disease (OR 1.55, p=0.008, 95% CI 1.12-2.13), coronary heart disease (OR 2.42, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.67-3.50), and being seen by a cardiologist (OR 1.35, p =0.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.81). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of LDL-C<70 were male sex (OR 1.55, p=0.001, 95% CI 1.20-2.01), white (OR 1.62, p=0.03, 95% CI 1.04-2.5-, diabetes (OR 1.64, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.29-2.09) and being seen by a cardiologist (OR 1.94, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.41-2.67). Discussion: Substantial gaps in care remain for secondary prevention of ASCVD despite simplified recommendations. While the majority of patients with ASCVD in community practice are on a statin, only one-third are on high intensity statins and over two-thirds have LDL ≥70 mg/dL.

AbstractBackgroundNon‐statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non‐statin LLT remain incompletely described.HypothesisThe guideline‐recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.MethodsThe PALM Registry collected LLT information on patients with or at risk of ASCVD treated at 125 US clinics in 2015. We compared patient perceptions, lipid levels and statin use among patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.ResultsAmong 7720 patients, 1930 (25.0%) were treated with a non‐statin LLT (1249 fish oil, 417 fibrates, 329 ezetimibe, 196 niacin). Concurrent statin treatment occurred in 73.7%, of which 45.4% were dosed under the guideline‐recommended intensity. Compared with patients on statin alone, patients receiving both a statin and non‐statin LLT (n = 1423) were more likely to be male, white race and to perceive themselves as higher risk of ASCVD compared with their peers (38.5% vs. 34.9%, p = .047). Only 27.4% of patients treated with non‐statin LLT alone perceived themselves at higher risk. Most (75.7%) patients treated with a non‐statin LLT alone reported never being treated with a statin, despite ASCVD in 30.8% of these patients. Among those previously treated with a statin, 59.3% reported being willing to try a statin again.ConclusionsNon‐statin LLT is used in one in four patients with or at risk for ASCVD; its use is frequently in place of statin therapy or in the absence of guideline‐recommended statin intensity. More work is needed to establish statins as first line therapy.