Search

"Food Is Medicine" (FIM) represents a spectrum of food-based interventions integrated into health care for patients with specific health conditions and often social needs. Programs include medically tailored meals, groceries, and produce prescriptions, with varying levels of nutrition and culinary education. Supportive advances include expanded care pathways and payment models, e-screening for food and nutrition security, and curricular and accreditation requirements for medical nutrition education. Evidence supports positive effects of FIM on food insecurity, diet quality, glucose control, hypertension, body weight, disease self-management, self-perceived physical and mental health, and cost-effectiveness or cost savings. However, most studies to date are quasiexperimental or pre/post interventions; larger randomized trials are ongoing. New national and local programs and policies are rapidly accelerating FIM within health care. Remaining research gaps require rigorous, iterative evaluation. Successful incorporation of FIM into health care will require multiparty partnerships to assess, optimize, and scale these promising treatments to advance health and health equity. [Display omitted] • "Food is Medicine" interventions integrate food-based treatments into health care systems. • Preliminary evidence suggests significant positive impacts of these programs. • Clinicians, health systems, and payers should support current and future directions of this strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A healthy dietary pattern improves dyslipidemia and other ASCVD risk factors. • Combining nutrition interventions can have additive effects for reducing LDL-C. • Interventions for TG elevation require individualization based on causal factors. • Dietitian-administered medical nutrition therapy benefits lipid management. Lifestyle habits can have a profound impact on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. The National Lipid Association previously published recommendations for lifestyle therapies to manage dyslipidemia. This Clinical Perspective provides an update with a focus on nutrition interventions for the three most common dyslipidemias in adults: 1) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) elevation; 2) triglyceride (TG) elevation, including severe hypertriglyceridemia with chylomicronemia; and 3) combined dyslipidemia, with elevations in both LDL-C and TG levels. Lowering LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are the primary objectives for reducing ASCVD risk. With severe TG elevation (≥500 mg/dL), the primary objective is to prevent pancreatitis and ASCVD risk reduction is secondary. Nutrition interventions that lower LDL-C levels include reducing cholesterol-raising fatty acids and dietary cholesterol, as well as increasing intakes of unsaturated fatty acids, plant proteins, viscous fibers, and reducing adiposity for patients with overweight or obesity. Selected dietary supplements may be employed as dietary adjuncts. Nutrition interventions for all patients with elevated TG levels include restricting intakes of alcohol, added sugars, and refined starches. Additional lifestyle factors that reduce TG levels are participating in daily physical activity and reducing adiposity in patients with overweight or obesity. For patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia, an individualized approach is essential. Nutrition interventions for addressing concurrent elevations in LDL-C and TG include a combination of the strategies described for lowering LDL-C and TG. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to facilitate success in making and sustaining dietary changes and the assistance of a registered dietitian nutritionist is highly recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Roundtable discussion concerns atherogenic risk markers and treatment targets used by clinical lipidologists in daily practice. Our purpose is to understand the risk marker framework that supports and enables the new ACC/AHA/Multisociety Cholesterol Guidelines. Some biomarkers are highly associated with atherogenic risk but fail to qualify as treatment targets. Prominent examples are high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, for which targeted treatment has failed to reduce cardiovascular risk, and lipoprotein(a), which currently lacks a highly effective mode of treatment. As a consequence, guidelines have focused consistently on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and more recently on non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We discuss a new calculation for LDL-C that shows greater accuracy than the commonly performed Friedewald calculation. LDL-C treatment goals have renewed prominence in the 2018 Guidelines. Thresholds for treatment initiation or intensification inherently establish goals of reducing atherogenic cholesterol levels below the thresholds. Treatment goals may be absolute, such as less than 70 mg/dL for LDL-C in very high-risk secondary prevention or relative, such as 50% or greater reduction of LDL-C. The timeframe of treatment is another consideration because milder treatment started earlier may sometimes be preferred over stronger treatment given late in the course of atherosclerotic progression. Advanced lipid testing and vascular imaging, particularly coronary artery calcium, also have their place in risk assessment to guide clinical lipid practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The HIV-AIDS epidemic has provided one of the more challenging problems in treatment of infectious diseases. As antiretroviral drugs made a very marked improvement in controlling the immunodeficiency state and patients gained in their longevity, the concern with lipid abnormalities came to the fore. The initial drugs produced a form of metabolic syndrome accompanied by very elevated plasma triglyceride concentrations. Furthermore, the drugs used to control the virus were often metabolized in a manner that interfered with lipid lowering drug therapy. The antiviral agents have improved in many respects and the experience in managing the lipid disorders has added greatly to our ability to control these problems as well. This roundtable discussion has been conducted with 4 physicians who have been involved in management of large cohorts of patients with HIV infection and who have had a special interest in reduction of vascular disease risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: One of the most serious challenges to all physicians is the maintenance of therapy for those chronic disorders that at present cannot be cured. Elevations of low-density lipoprotein and very low-density lipoprotein are among the most common of those disorders. We are now in an era in which 2 fundamental developments of modern technology have come together. These are the supply of effective and safe lipid-lowering drugs as well as the ability to closely monitor pertinent measures in our patients. The rapid conversion of our health care systems into large teams of professionals with direct support from third-party payers has made it possible to coordinate chronic care through electronic medical records and electronic communication. As a result, with effective planning and organization, we can guide our patients toward better adherence to successful medical regimens. These issues are evolving rapidly and have been presented in some detail in the December 2013 issue of the Journal. I was joined in this Roundtable discussion by 3 health professionals who have had extensive experience with the application of health information technology. They are Dr. Karen Aspry and Dr. Alan Brown, both clinical cardiologists, and Dr. Matthew Ito, a Doctor of Pharmacy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The workshop discussions focused on how low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment can be enhanced with the use of health information technology (HIT) in different clinical settings. A gap is acknowledged in LDL-C goal attainment, but because of the passage of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Acts there is now reason for optimism that this gap can be narrowed. For HIT to be effectively used to achieve treatment goals, it must be implemented in a setting in which the health care team is fully committed to achieving these goals. Implementation of HIT alone has not resulted in reducing the gap. It is critical to build an effective management strategy into the HIT platform without increasing the overall work/time burden on staff. By enhancing communication between the health care team and the patient, more timely adjustments to treatment plans can be made with greater opportunity for LDL-C goal attainment and improved efficiency in the long run. Patients would be encouraged to take a more active role. Support tools are available. The National Lipid Association has developed a toolkit designed to improve patient compliance and could be modified for use in an HIT system. The importance of a collaborative approach between nongovernmental organizations such as the National Lipid Association, National Quality Forum, HIT partners, and other members of the health care industry offers the best opportunity for long-term success and the real possibility that such efforts could be applied to other chronic conditions, for example, diabetes and hypertension. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Large gaps in lipid treatment and medication adherence persist in high-risk outpatients in the United States. Health information technology (HIT) is being applied to close quality gaps in chronic illness care, but its utility for lipid management has not been widely studied. Objective: To perform a qualitative review of the impact of HIT interventions on lipid management processes of care (screening or testing; drug initiation, titration or adherence; or referrals) or clinical outcomes (percent at low density lipoprotein cholesterol goal; absolute lipid levels; absolute risk scores; or cardiac hospitalizations) in outpatients with coronary heart disease or at increased risk. Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings related to clinical informatics and cholesterol or lipid management. English language articles that described a randomized controlled design, tested at least one HIT tool in high risk outpatients, and reported at least 1 lipid management process measure or clinical outcome, were included. Results: Thirty-four studies that enrolled 87,874 persons were identified. Study ratings, outcomes, and magnitude of effects varied widely. Twenty-three trials reported a significant positive effect from a HIT tool on lipid management, but only 14 showed evidence that HIT interventions improve clinical outcomes. There was mixed evidence that provider-level computerized decision support improves outcomes. There was more evidence in support of patient-level tools that provide connectivity to the healthcare system, as well as system-level interventions that involve database monitoring and outreach by centralized care teams. Conclusion: Randomized controlled trials show wide variability in the effects of HIT on lipid management outcomes. Evidence suggests that multilevel HIT approaches that target not only providers but include patients and systems approaches will be needed to improve lipid treatment, adherence and quality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Historically, low-carbohydrate (CHO) and very-low-CHO diets have been used for weight loss. Recently, these diets have been promoted for type 2 diabetes (T2D) management. This scientific statement provides a comprehensive review of the current evidence base available from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets on body weight, lipoprotein lipids, glycemic control, and other cardiometabolic risk factors. In addition, evidence on emerging risk factors and potential safety concerns of low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets, especially for high-risk individuals, such as those with genetic lipid disorders, was reviewed. Based on the evidence reviewed, low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets are not superior to other dietary approaches for weight loss. These diets may have advantages related to appetite control, triglyceride reduction, and reduction in the use of medication in T2D management. The evidence reviewed showed mixed effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with some studies showing an increase. There was no clear evidence for advantages regarding effects on other cardiometabolic risk markers. Minimal data are available regarding long-term (>2 years) efficacy and safety. Clinicians are encouraged to consider the evidence discussed in this scientific statement when counseling patients on the use of low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets. • Low- and very-low-carbohydrate diets are not superior to other weight loss diets. • May have advantages on appetite and reduced triglyceride and diabetes medication. • Mixed effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. • No clear evidence for advantages related to other cardiometabolic risk markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]