Search

This article discusses a study that examines the use of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention among adults in the United States. The study found that the use of aspirin for primary prevention has declined, especially among adults aged 60 and older. However, the use of aspirin for secondary prevention remained stable. The study suggests that physicians should discuss the risks and benefits of aspirin use with their patients to reduce inappropriate use for primary prevention in older adults. [Extracted from the article]

The goal of this analysis was to evaluate the ability of insulin resistance, identified by the presence of prediabetes mellitus (PreDM) combined with either an elevated triglyceride (TG >1.7 mmol/l) or body mass index (BMI ≥27.0 kg/m2), to identify increased risk of statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Consequently, a retrospective analysis of data from subjects without diabetes in the Treating to New Targets and the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels randomized controlled trials was performed, subdividing participants into 4 experimental groups: (1) normal fasting glucose (NFG) and TG ≤1.7 mmol/l (42%); (2) NFG and TG >1.7 mmol/l (22%); (3) PreDM and TG ≤1.7 mmol/l (20%); and (4) PreDM and TG >1.7 mmol/l (15%). Comparable groupings were created substituting BMI values (kg/m2 1.7 mmol/l) with intermediate values for only an elevated TG >1.7 mmol/l (5.2%/4.3%) or only PreDM (12.8%/7.6%). Comparable differences were observed when BMI values were substituted for TG concentrations. In conclusion, these data suggest that (1) the diabetogenic impact of statin treatment is relatively modest in general; (2) the diabetogenic impact is accentuated relatively dramatically as FPG and TG concentrations and BMI increase; and (3) PreDM, TG concentrations, and BMI identify people at highest risk of statin-associated T2DM.

Abstract The pooled cohort equations (PCE) predict atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in patients with characteristics within prespecified ranges and has uncertain performance among Asians or Hispanics. It is unknown if machine learning (ML) models can improve ASCVD risk prediction across broader diverse, real-world populations. We developed ML models for ASCVD risk prediction for multi-ethnic patients using an electronic health record (EHR) database from Northern California. Our cohort included patients aged 18 years or older with no prior CVD and not on statins at baseline (n = 262,923), stratified by PCE-eligible (n = 131,721) or PCE-ineligible patients based on missing or out-of-range variables. We trained ML models [logistic regression with L2 penalty and L1 lasso penalty, random forest, gradient boosting machine (GBM), extreme gradient boosting] and determined 5-year ASCVD risk prediction, including with and without incorporation of additional EHR variables, and in Asian and Hispanic subgroups. A total of 4309 patients had ASCVD events, with 2077 in PCE-ineligible patients. GBM performance in the full cohort, including PCE-ineligible patients (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.835, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.825–0.846), was significantly better than that of the PCE in the PCE-eligible cohort (AUC 0.775, 95% CI: 0.755–0.794). Among patients aged 40–79, GBM performed similarly before (AUC 0.784, 95% CI: 0.759–0.808) and after (AUC 0.790, 95% CI: 0.765–0.814) incorporating additional EHR data. Overall, ML models achieved comparable or improved performance compared to the PCE while allowing risk discrimination in a larger group of patients including PCE-ineligible patients. EHR-trained ML models may help bridge important gaps in ASCVD risk prediction.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection is an increasingly recognized cause of acute coronary syndrome in younger patients. Management remains challenging and involves weighing the benefits of revascularization with the potential to worsen the dissection. We present a case of spontaneous coronary artery dissection with the superimposed complexity of an anomalous intramural coronary artery. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.)

BackgroundLipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly proatherogenic lipid fraction that is a clinically significant risk modifier. Patients wanting to learn more about Lp(a) are likely to use online patient educational materials (OPEMs). However, the readability of OPEMs may exceed the health literacy of the public. ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the readability of OPEMs related to Lp(a). We hypothesized that the readability of these online materials would exceed the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. MethodsUsing an online search engine, we queried the top 20 search results from 10 commonly used Lp(a)-related search terms to identify a total of 200 websites. We excluded duplicate websites, advertised results, research journal articles, or non–patient-directed materials, such as those intended only for health professionals or researchers. Grade level readability was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics (automated readability index, SMOG index, Coleman-Liau index, Gunning Fog score, Flesch-Kincaid score) to produce robust point (mean) and interval (CI) estimates of readability. Generalized estimating equations were used to model grade level readability by each search term, with the 5 readability scores nested within each OPEM. ResultsA total of 27 unique websites were identified for analysis. The average readability score for the aggregated results was a 12.2 (95% CI 10.9798-13.3978) grade level. OPEMs were grouped into 6 categories by primary source: industry, lay press, research foundation and nonprofit organizations, university or government, clinic, and other. The most readable category was OPEMs published by universities or government agencies (9.0, 95% CI 6.8-11.3). The least readable OPEMs on average were the ones published by the lay press (13.0, 95% CI 11.2-14.8). All categories exceeded the sixth grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association. ConclusionsLack of access to readable OPEMs may disproportionately affect patients with low health literacy. Ensuring that online content is understandable by broad audiences is a necessary component of increasing the impact of novel therapeutics and recommendations regarding Lp(a).

Introduction Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is typically compared with influenza to contextualize its health risks. SARS-CoV-2 has been linked with coagulation disturbances including arterial thrombosis, leading to considerable interest in antithrombotic therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the independent thromboembolic risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with influenza remains incompletely understood. We evaluated the adjusted risks of thromboembolic events after a diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with influenza in a large retrospective cohort. Methods We used a US-based electronic health record (EHR) dataset linked with insurance claims to identify adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. We identified influenza patients diagnosed between October 1, 2018 and April 31, 2019. Primary outcomes [venous composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT); arterial composite of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI)] and secondary outcomes were assessed 90 days post-diagnosis. Propensity scores (PS) were calculated using demographic, clinical, and medication variables. PS-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results There were 417,975 COVID-19 patients (median age 57y, 61% women), and 345,934 influenza patients (median age 47y, 66% women). Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had higher venous thromboembolic risk (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.38–1.70), but not arterial thromboembolic risk (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95–1.10). Secondary analyses demonstrated similar risk for ischemic stroke (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98–1.25) and MI (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85–1.03) and higher risk for DVT (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19–1.56) and PE (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57–2.10) in patients with COVID-19. Conclusion In a large retrospective US cohort, COVID-19 was independently associated with higher 90-day risk for venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, as compared with influenza. These findings may inform crucial knowledge gaps regarding the specific thromboembolic risks of COVID-19.

Objectives Identifying high-risk patients is crucial for effective cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. It is not known whether electronic health record (EHR)-based machine-learning (ML) models can improve CVD risk stratification compared with a secondary prevention risk score developed from randomised clinical trials (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention, TRS 2°P).Methods We identified patients with CVD in a large health system, including atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), split into 80% training and 20% test sets. A rich set of EHR patient features was extracted. ML models were trained to estimate 5-year CVD event risk (random forests (RF), gradient-boosted machines (GBM), extreme gradient-boosted models (XGBoost), logistic regression with an L2 penalty and L1 penalty (Lasso)). ML models and TRS 2°P were evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).Results The cohort included 32 192 patients (median age 74 years, with 46% female, 63% non-Hispanic white and 12% Asian patients and 23 475 patients with ASCVD). There were 4010 events over 5 years of follow-up. ML models demonstrated good overall performance; XGBoost demonstrated AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.71) in the full CVD cohort and AUC 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.73) in patients with ASCVD, with comparable performance by GBM, RF and Lasso. TRS 2°P performed poorly in all CVD (AUC 0.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.53) and ASCVD (AUC 0.50, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.52) patients. ML identified nontraditional predictive variables including education level and primary care visits.Conclusions In a multiethnic real-world population, EHR-based ML approaches significantly improved CVD risk stratification for secondary prevention.

Introduction Population-level and individual-level analyses have strengths and limitations as do ‘blackbox’ machine learning (ML) and traditional, interpretable models. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality with complex sociodemographic dynamics that have not been analyzed in a way that leverages population-level and individual-level data as well as traditional epidemiological and ML models. We analyzed complementary individual-level and county-level datasets with both regression and ML methods to study the association between sociodemographic factors and DM.Research design and methods County-level DM prevalence, demographics, and socioeconomic status (SES) factors were extracted from the 2018 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings and merged with US Census data. Analogous individual-level data were extracted from 2007 to 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey studies and corrected for oversampling with survey weights. We used multivariate linear (logistic) regression and ML regression (classification) models for county (individual) data. Regression and ML models were compared using measures of explained variation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and R2).Results Among the 3138 counties assessed, the mean DM prevalence was 11.4% (range: 3.0%–21.1%). Among the 12 824 individuals assessed, 1688 met DM criteria (13.2% unweighted; 10.2% weighted). Age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, and education were associated with DM at the county and individual levels. Higher county Hispanic ethnic density was negatively associated with county DM prevalence, while Hispanic ethnicity was positively associated with individual DM. ML outperformed regression in both datasets (mean R2 of 0.679 vs 0.610, respectively (p

Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited lipid disorder affecting 1 in 220 individuals resulting in highly elevated low-density lipoprotein levels and risk of premature coronary disease. Pathogenic variants causing FH typically involve the LDL receptor (LDLR), apolipoprotein B-100 (APOB), and proprotein convertase subtulisin/kexin type 9 genes (PCSK9) and if identified convey a risk of early onset coronary artery disease (ASCVD) of 3- to 10-fold vs. the general population depending on the severity of the mutation. Identification of monogenic FH within a family has implications for family-based testing (cascade screening), risk stratification, and potentially management, and it has now been recommended that such testing be offered to all potential FH patients. Recently, robust genome wide association studies (GWAS) have led to the recognition that the accumulation of common, small effect alleles affecting many LDL-c raising genes can result in a clinical phenotype largely indistinguishable from monogenic FH (i.e., a risk of early onset ASCVD of ~3-fold) in those at the extreme tail of the distribution for these alleles (i.e., the top 8% of the population for a polygenic risk score). The incorporation of these genetic risk scores into clinical practice for non-FH patients may improve risk stratification but is not yet widely performed due to a less robust evidence base for utility. Here, we review the current status of FH genetic testing, potential future applications as well as challenges and pitfalls.