Shah, Nishant

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: Nationally, many ASCVD patients fail to achieve an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and uptake of both statin and non-statin therapies is low. The degree to which this varies across health systems is less clear. Methods: A cross sectional analysis was performed where lipid levels and lipid lowering therapies (LLT) were assessed using electronic health record data in patients with a previous diagnosis of ASCVD. The data was obtained across 14 US healthcare systems between 1/1/2021-12/31/2022. Proportions of patients with an active prescription of any statin, high intensity statin, ezetimibe, PCSK9i, and combination therapy (two or more agents) within 395 days of the most recent LDL-C value (index date) was evaluated overall and by participating site. Additionally, the proportion of patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at the index date was also assessed. Results: Across 14 health systems, 1,118,623 patients with ASCVD were identified (median 61,840 per health system, range 8,161-182,315). Overall, 675,776 (60.4%) had an LDL-C level in the past year (range 39.1% - 70.8%). Of those with a lipid level, achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL ranged from 34.6-47.2%. In total, 42.6% were on any statin, 20.1% were on a high intensity statin, 4.3% on ezetimibe, and 1.2% on a PCSK9i. Only 2.9% were on combination therapy of a statin with ezetimibe or a PCSK9i. Variability was seen across health systems in utilization of each of these therapies, however even in the highest performing health systems, LLT uptake and achievement of LDL-C < 70mg/dL remained low ( Figure). Conclusion: Variability in utilization of LLT in ASCVD patients between health systems suggests that system-level factors may impact achieving guideline-based LDL-C goals. Despite the variability, the highest proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C <70mg/dL remained under 50% indicating the need for aggressive implementation efforts.

Introduction: Guidelines are increasingly recommending a goal LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The proportion and characteristics of US adults with ASCVD with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL remains unclear. Aims: To evaluate lipid management in ASCVD patients and factors associated with achieving an LDL-C <55mg/dL. Methods: Using electronic health record data from 8 US health systems, we evaluated LDL-C levels and treatment patterns in persons with prevalent ASCVD seen as outpatients between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021 with an LDL-C level within the prior year. Multivariable logistic regression modeling with generalized estimating equations was used to evaluate factors associated with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Results: Among 178,240 eligible ASCVD patients, 43.5% (77,472) had an LDL- C <70 mg/dL and 22.0% (39,270) had an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Older age was associated with higher odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.10 per 10 years, 95% CI 1.07-1.13), while female sex (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.64) Black race (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.86), and non-coronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (PAD, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD, OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.79) were associated with lower odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL in multivariable modeling. Overall, while 75.0% were on a statin, only 36.9% were on a high-intensity statin, 5.7% were on ezetimibe, and 1.7% were on a PCSK9i. Combination therapy was rare: only 4.2% were on a statin+ezetimibe, 0.5% on statin+PCSK9i, and 0.3% on all three. Conclusions: Less than a quarter of US patients with ASCVD achieve an LDL <55 mg/dL. Achieving this goal is even less common among younger adults, women, Black persons, and those with PAD and CeVD. Current therapeutic regimens often fail to use high-intensity statins, and markedly underutilize combinations of statins with ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, debilitating condition associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic burden. Patients with end-stage HF (ESHF) who are not a candidate for advanced therapies will continue to progress despite standard medical therapy. Thus, the focus of care shifts from prolonging life to controlling symptoms and improving quality of life through palliative care ( PC). Because the condition and prognosis of HF patients evolve and can rapidly deteriorate, it is imperative to begin the discussion on end-of-life (EOL) issues early during HF management. These include the completion of an advance directive, do-not-resuscitate orders, and policies on device therapy and discontinuation as part of advance care planning (ACP). ESHF patients who do not have indications for advanced therapies or those who wish not to have a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplant (HT) often experience high symptom burden despite adequate medical management. The proper identification and assessment of symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, nausea, depression, and anxiety are essential to the management of ESHF and may be underdiagnosed and undertreated. Psychological support and spiritual care are also crucial to improving the quality of life during EOL. Caregivers of ESHF patients must also be provided supportive care to prevent compassion fatigue and improve resilience in patient care. In this narrative review, we compare the international guidelines and provide an overview of end-of-life and palliative care for patients with ESHF.