Search

Objective: Aspirin has been used for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) for decades, but this indication has become controversial with recent trial data. The 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provided a recommendation to consider aspirin use for primary prevention in adults 40–59 years with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10 % and not at increased risk of bleeding, yet population estimates for the impact of this recommendation are unknown. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and demographics of the US population who meet eligibility criteria for aspirin under the new 2022 USPSTF guidelines. Methods: This is a serial cross-sectional study using data from the 2011-March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database. Individuals aged 40–59 years without a self-reported history of ASCVD were included. 10-year estimated ASCVD risk ≥10 % as calculated by the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) and increased bleeding risk determined using variables adapted from USPSTF guidelines were further applied as inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively. The weighted frequencies of US adults aged 40–59 years qualifying for primary prevention aspirin, subgrouped by gender, age, and race/ethnicity, were calculated. Results: Among 72,840,734 US individuals aged 40–59 years, 7.2 million (10 %) are eligible for consideration of primary prevention aspirin by PCE criteria. Of these, approximately 30 % would be potentially excluded based on increased bleeding risks, resulting in a net eligible cohort of 5 million. This represents 7 % of US adults aged 40–59 years and only 2.6 % of adults ≥18 years. Men, age 50–59 years, and Black race have higher proportions meeting aspirin use eligibility. Conclusions: The overall prevalence of US individuals who qualify for aspirin for primary prevention under the 2022 USPSTF guidelines is modest, with larger proportional eligibility among men, older age, and Black individuals.

Background Many individuals eligible for statin therapy decline treatment, often due to fear of adverse effects. Misinformation about statins is common and drives statin reluctance, but its prevalence on social media platforms, such as Twitter (now X) remains unclear. Social media bots are known to proliferate medical misinformation, but their involvement in statin‐related discourse is unknown. This study examined temporal trends in volume, author type (bot or human), and sentiment of statin‐related Twitter posts (tweets). Methods and Results We analyzed original tweets with statin‐related terms from 2010 to 2022 using a machine learning–derived classifier to determine the author's bot probability, natural language processing to assign each tweet a negative or positive sentiment, and manual qualitative analysis to identify statin skepticism in a random sample of all tweets and in highly influential tweets. We identified 1 155 735 original statin‐related tweets. Bots produced 333 689 (28.9%), humans produced 699 876 (60.6%), and intermediate probability accounts produced 104 966 (9.1%). Over time, the proportion of bot tweets decreased from 47.8% to 11.3%, and human tweets increased from 43.6% to 79.8%. The proportion of negative‐sentiment tweets increased from 27.8% to 43.4% for bots and 30.9% to 38.4% for humans. Manually coded statin skepticism increased from 8.0% to 19.0% for bots and from 26.0% to 40.0% for humans. Conclusions Over the past decade, humans have overtaken bots as generators of statin‐related content on Twitter. Negative sentiment and statin skepticism have increased across all user types. Twitter may be an important forum to combat statin‐related misinformation.

Objective: National guidelines recommend statin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. We assessed the extent of moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy utilization in community practice. Methods: We evaluated lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels at baseline and 1-year follow-up in patients aged 40–75 years with type 2 diabetes but without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), across 90 health systems in the United States participating in an electronic health record–derived dataset, Cerner Real-World Data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with utilization of moderate- to high-intensity statin. Results: We identified 241,232 patients with type 2 diabetes (58.1 % on moderate- to high-intensity statin, 7.0 % on low-intensity statin, and 34.9 % on no statin). Predictors of moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy included retinopathy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.26; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.15–1.38), hypertension (aOR, 1.52; 95 % CI, 1.43–1.61), and stage 3 chronic kidney disease (aOR, 1.14; 95 % CI, 1.07–1.21). Women (aOR, 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.82–0.87), and those with rheumatoid arthritis (aOR, 0.79; 95 % CI, 0.71–0.87), psoriasis (aOR, 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.75–0.96), and hepatitis C (aOR, 0.40; 95 % CI, 0.39–0.46), had reduced odds of moderate- to high-intensity statin treatment. Utilization of ezetimibe was rare (2.0 %). LDL-C control was suboptimal at baseline (37.0 % and 27.9 % had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL and

Background High‐density lipoprotein (HDL) particle concentration likely outperforms HDL cholesterol in predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. Whether size‐based HDL subspecies explain the atheroprotective associations of HDL particle concentration remains unknown. Our objective was to assess whether levels of specific size‐based HDL subspecies associate with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a multiethnic pooled cohort and improve risk prediction beyond traditional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. Methods and Results Seven HDL size‐based subspecies were quantified by nuclear magnetic resonance (LP4 algorithm; H1=smallest; H7=largest) among participants without prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities), MESA (Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), PREVEND (Prevention of Renal and Vascular Endstage Disease), and DHS (Dallas Heart Study) cohorts (n=15 371 people). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between HDL subspecies and incident myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke at follow‐up (average 8–10 years) adjusting for HDL cholesterol and risk factors. Improvement in risk prediction was assessed via discrimination and reclassification analysis. Within the pooled cohort (median age 57 years; female 54%; Black 22%) higher H1 (small) and H4 (medium) concentrations were inversely associated with incident MI (hazard ratio [HR]/SD, H1 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81–0.94]; H4 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82–0.97]). H4 but not H1 improved risk prediction indices for incident MI. Increasing H2 and H4 were inversely associated with improved risk prediction indices for composite end point of stroke, MI, and cardiovascular death (HR/SD, H2 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88–0.99]; H4 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85–0.98]). Levels of the large subspecies (H6 and H7) were not associated with any vascular end point. Conclusions Two of 7 HDL size‐based subspecies modestly improved risk prediction for MI and composite vascular end points in a large multiethnic pooled cohort. These findings support assessment of precise HDL subspecies for future studies regarding clinical utility.

Therapeutic Area: CVD Prevention – Primary and Secondary Background: Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains controversial. The 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines give a grade C recommendation to consider aspirin use for primary prevention in adults aged 40-59 years with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% and not at increased risk of bleeding. We sought to determine the prevalence and demographics of the US adult population who meet eligibility criteria under these guidelines. Methods: Adults from the 2011-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database aged ≥18 years without a self-reported history of CVD and with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% calculated by the Pooled Cohort Equations were included. Increased bleeding risk variables were selected per the USPSTF modeling criteria and adapted to available NHANES variables, including congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic or diabetic kidney disease, peptic ulcer disease, bleeding history, thrombocytopenia, and use of anticoagulation, corticosteroids, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, NSAID drugs, or other antiplatelet agents. The weighted frequencies of US adults aged 40-59 and ≥18 years who qualify for primary prevention aspirin were calculated. Results: The study sample included 6730 individuals aged 40-59 years, representing 80 million people in the US population. A total of 7.8 million individuals in this age group are eligible for consideration of aspirin use for primary prevention, with approximately 30% meeting criteria for increased bleeding risk. This results in a net eligible cohort of 5.4 million individuals, representing 6.8% of adults aged 40-59 years. Male sex, age 50-59 years, and Black race have higher proportions meeting aspirin use eligibility and increased bleeding risk. Notably, only 2.1% of women in this age group are aspirin eligible. Among the entire US adult population ≥18 years, 2.5% are eligible under these guidelines. Conclusions: The prevalence of US individuals who qualify for aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD under the 2022 USPSTF guidelines is small, with larger proportional eligibility among men, older age, and Black individuals. These findings suggest that the clinical application of aspirin for primary prevention in the modern era using traditional eligibility criteria under USPSTF recommendations remains limited.

Therapeutic Area: CVD Prevention – Primary and Secondary Background: Patients are at high risk for a recurrent cardiovascular (CV) event in the first year following acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a modifiable risk factor for recurrent CV events. Despite the availability of lipid-lowering therapies (LLT), many patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C

Abstract Background: Peri-diagnostic vaccination contemporaneous with SARS-CoV-2 infection might boost antiviral immunity and improve patient outcomes. We investigated, among previously unvaccinated patients, whether vaccination (with the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J vaccines) during the week before or after a positive COVID-19 test was associated with altered 30-day patient outcomes. Methods: Using a deidentified longitudinal EHR repository, we selected all previously unvaccinated adults who initially tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between December 11, 2020 (the date of vaccine emergency use approval) and December 19, 2021. We assessed whether vaccination between days –7 and +7 of a positive test affected outcomes. The primary measure was progression to a more severe disease outcome within 30 days of diagnosis using the following hierarchy: hospitalization, intensive care, or death. Results: Among 60,031 hospitalized patients, 543 (0.91%) were initially vaccinated at the time of diagnosis and 59,488 (99.09%) remained unvaccinated during the period of interest. Among 316,337 nonhospitalized patients, 2,844 (0.90%) were initially vaccinated and 313,493 (99.1%) remained unvaccinated. In both analyses, individuals receiving vaccines were older, more often located in the northeast, more commonly insured by Medicare, and more burdened by comorbidities. Among previously unvaccinated patients, there was no association between receiving an initial vaccine dose between days −7 and +7 of diagnosis and progression to more severe disease within 30 days compared to patients who did not receive vaccines. Conclusions: Immunization during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection does not appear associated with clinical progression during the acute infectious period.

More than half of U.S. young adults have low ten-year but high lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Improving primary prevention in young adulthood may help reduce persistent CVD disparities and overall CVD morbidity and mortality. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a workshop in 2021 to identify potential trial opportunities in CVD prevention in young adults. The workshop identified promising interventions that could be tested, including interventions that focus on a single cardiovascular risk factor (e.g., lipids or inflammation) to multiple risk factor interventions (e.g., multicomponent lifestyle interventions or fixed-low dose combination of medications). Given the sample size and duration for a trial with hard endpoints, more research is needed on the utility of intermediate endpoints identified noninvasively such as subclinical coronary atherosclerosis as a surrogate endpoint. For now, clinical outcomes trials with hard endpoints will more likely change clinical practice. Trial efficiency depends on accurate identification of high-risk young adults, which can potentially be done using traditional risk equations, coronary artery calcium screening, computerized tomography coronary angiography, and polygenic risk scores. Trials in young adults should include enhanced recruitment strategies with intense community engagement to enroll a trial population that is racially, ethnically, geographically, and socially diverse. Despite the challenges in conducting large prevention trials in young adults, recent advances including innovation in clinical trial conduct, new therapies and successful interventions in older populations, and an increasing recognition of a lifespan approach to risk assessment have made such trials more feasible than ever. Disclosures: The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Background Among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and an elevated stroke risk, guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin for stroke prevention. Changes in DOAC use over the past decade have not been well described. Methods and Results We evaluated trends in use of DOACs and warfarin from 2011 to 2020 among adults with AF and a CHA2DS2‐VASc score ≥2 based on electronic health record data from 88 health systems in the United States contributing to Cerner Real World Data. The use of DOACs and warfarin was described over time, by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, and at the health‐system level. We identified 436 864 patients with AF at risk for stroke (median age, 78 years; 52.1% men). From 2011 to 2020, overall anticoagulation rates increased from 56.3% to 64.7%, as DOAC use increased steadily (from 4.7% to 47.9%), while warfarin use declined (from 52.4% to 17.7%). DOAC uptake was similar across age, sex, and race and ethnicity groups but varied by health system. In 2020, the median health‐system‐level proportion of patients with AF on a DOAC was 49% (interquartile range, 40%–54%). Conclusions Over the past decade, anticoagulation rates for patients with AF have increased modestly as DOACs largely replaced warfarin, though significant gaps remain: One in 3 high‐risk patients with AF is not on any anticoagulant. While DOAC adoption was generally consistent across major demographic groups, use between health systems remained highly variable, suggesting that provider and system factors influence DOAC uptake use more than patient‐level factors.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death for both women and men worldwide. In the United States (U.S.), there are significant disparities in cardiovascular risk factors and CVD outcomes among racial and ethnic minority populations, some of whom have the highest U.S. CVD incidence and mortality. Despite this, women and racial/ethnic minority populations remain underrepresented in cardiovascular clinical trials, relative to their disease burden and population percentage. The lack of diverse participants in trials is not only a moral and ethical issue, but a scientific concern, as it can limit application of future therapies. Providing comprehensive demographic data by sex and race/ethnicity and increasing representation of diverse participants into clinical trials are essential in assessing accurate drug response, safety and efficacy information. Additionally, diversifying investigators and clinical trial staff may assist with connecting to the language, customs, and beliefs of study populations and increase recruitment of participants from diverse backgrounds. In this review, a working group for the American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) reviewed the literature regarding the inclusion of women and individuals of diverse backgrounds into cardiovascular clinical trials, focusing on prevention, and provided recommendations of best practices for improving enrollment to be more representative of the U.S. society into trials.

The prevalence of dyslipidaemia has been increasing in the Asia-Pacific region and this is attributed to dietary changes and decreasing physical activity. While there has been substantial progress in dyslipidaemia therapy, its management in the region is hindered by limitations in awareness, adherence and healthcare costs. The Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology (APSC) developed these consensus recommendations to address the need for a unified approach to managing dyslipidaemia. These recommendations are intended to guide general cardiologists and internists in the assessment and treatment of dyslipidaemia and are hoped to pave the way for improving screening, early diagnosis and treatment. The APSC expert panel reviewed and appraised the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Consensus recommendations were developed, which were then put to an online vote. The resulting consensus recommendations tackle contemporary issues in the management of dyslipidaemia, familial hypercholesterolaemia and lipoprotein(a) in the Asia-Pacific region.

Background: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes that older adults and individuals with certain medical conditions are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Understanding the proportion of the population at risk of severe infection, including among those with heart disease, could assist current vaccine strategy efforts. Methods: Using data from the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), we estimated the weighted prevalence of any of eight of eleven increased-risk conditions (including age ≥65) in U.S. adults aged ≥18 (N = 10,581) and extrapolated these results to a population of 233.8 million U.S. adults ≥18, and subgroups from the overall population defined by race/ethnicity, education, income and history of heart disease. Results: An estimated 176.1 million individuals representing 75.4% of U.S. adults had at least one increased-risk condition, 40.3% ≥2 and, 18.5% ≥3 conditions. Approximately 129 million adults aged 0.05) and Hispanics in the younger population (70.8 vs 68.4%) were estimated to be at increased-risk. Conversely, a greater proportion of individuals with lower education and income levels were estimated to be at increased-risk both in the overall and younger population. In addition, an estimated 6.2 million individuals (14.5%) had heart disease. Among these, virtually all had at least one additional CDC risk factor (97.9%) and most had ≥2 or ≥3 risk factors (83.8% and 58.5%, respectively). Conclusions: As vaccination strategies are being explored, these results demonstrate that >75% of adults in the U.S. would be considered at increased-risk for severe COVID-19 infection by CDC criteria. Risk factor prevalence alone may not adequately capture the totality of risk, particularly among Black and Hispanic racial/ethnic groups and those with heart disease.

Background PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors represent a promising class of lipid‐lowering therapy, although their use has been limited by cost concerns. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a nationwide commercial claims database comprising patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), aged 18 to 64 years. We identified the number of patients with ASCVD started on a PCSK9 inhibitor from the dates of US Food and Drug Administration approval in quarter 3 2015 through quarter 2 2019. Secondary objectives identified the proportions of patients started on a PCSK9 inhibitor in various ASCVD risk groups based on statin use and baseline low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. We identified 126 419 patients with ASCVD on either PCSK9 inhibitor or statin therapy. Among these patients, 1168 (0.9%) filled a prescription for a PCSK9 inhibitor. The number of patients initiating a PCSK9 inhibitor increased from 2 patients in quarter 3 2015 to 119 patients in quarter 2 2019, corresponding to an increase from 0.05% to 2.5% of patients with ASCVD already on statins who started PCSK9 inhibitor therapy. Of patients with ASCVD with high adherence to a high‐intensity statin, 13 643 had low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥70 mg/dL, and in this subgroup, 119 (0.9%) patients initiated a PCSK9 inhibitor. Conclusions Few patients started PCSK9 inhibitors from 2015 through mid‐2019, despite increasing trial evidence of efficacy, guidelines recommending PCSK9 inhibitors in high‐risk patients with ASCVD, and price reductions during this period. The magnitude of price reductions may not yet be sufficient to influence use management strategies aimed to limit PCSK9 inhibitor use.

Background Few adults at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events use a PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor). Methods and Results Using data from the US Veterans Health Administration, we identified veterans who initiated a PCSK9i between January 2018 and December 2019, matched 1:4 to veterans who did not initiate this medication over this time period (case‐cohort study). Two cohorts of veterans were analyzed: (1) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with a most recent low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) ≥70 mg/dL; and (2) severe hypercholesterolemia (ie, familial hypercholesterolemia or any prior LDL‐C ≥190 mg/dL, with most recent LDL‐C ≥100 mg/dL). Conditional logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with PCSK9i initiation, adjusting for all factors, simultaneously. There were 2394 initiators and 9576 noninitiators in the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease cohort (median LDL‐C, 141 and 96 mg/dL, respectively; P

BackgroundThe success of vaccination efforts to curb the COVID-19 pandemic will require broad public uptake of immunization and highlights the importance of understanding factors associated with willingness to receive a vaccine.MethodsU.S. adults aged 65 and older enrolled in the HeartlineTM clinical study were invited to complete a COVID-19 vaccine assessment through the HeartlineTM mobile application between November 6-20, 2020. Factors associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine were evaluated using an ordered logistic regression as well as a Random Forest classification algorithm.ResultsAmong 9,106 study participants, 81.3% (n = 7402) responded and had available demographic data. The majority (91.3%) reported a willingness to be vaccinated. Factors most strongly associated with vaccine willingness were beliefs about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general. Women and Black or African American respondents reported lower willingness to vaccinate. Among those less willing to get vaccinated, 66.2% said that they would talk with their health provider before making a decision. During the study, positive results from the first COVID-19 vaccine outcome study were released; vaccine willingness increased after this report.ConclusionsEven among older adults at high-risk for COVID-19 complications who are participating in a longitudinal clinical study, 1 in 11 reported lack of willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine in November 2020. Variability in vaccine willingness by gender, race, education, and income suggests the potential for uneven vaccine uptake. Education by health providers directed toward assuaging concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy can help improve vaccine acceptance among those less willing.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04276441.

Introduction: Significant heterogeneity in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and healthcare resource allocation has been demonstrated in the United States, but optimal methods to capture heterogeneity in county-level characteristics that contribute to CVD mortality differences are unclear. We evaluated the feasibility of unsupervised machine learning (ML)-based phenomapping in identifying subgroups of county-level social and demographic risk factors with differential CVD outcomes. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using county-level data from 2008 to 2018 from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) WONDER platform and the 2020 Robert Wood Johnson County Health Rankings program. Unsupervised clustering was performed on 46 facets of population characteristics spanning the demographic, health behaviors, socioeconomic, and healthcare access domains. Spatial autocorrelation was assessed using the Moran’s I test, and temporal trends in age-adjusted CVD outcomes were evaluated using linear mixed effect models and least square means. Results: Among 2676 counties, 4 county-level phenogroups were identified (Moran’s I p-value

Background Despite guideline recommendations and clinical trial data suggesting benefit, statin therapy use in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to understand clinician and patient views on statin therapy, statin‐associated side effects (SASEs), SASE management, and communication around statin risks and benefits. Methods and Results We conducted qualitative interviews of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had SASEs (n=17) and clinicians who regularly prescribe statins (n=20). We used directed content analysis, facilitated by Atlas.ti software, to develop and revise codebooks for clinician and patient interviews. The most relevant codes were “pile sorted” into 5 main topic domains: (1) SASEs vary in severity, duration, and time of onset; (2) communication practices by clinicians around statins and SASEs are variable and impacted by clinician time limitations and patient preconceived notions of SASEs; (3) although a “trial and error” approach to managing SASEs may be effective in allowing clinicians to keep patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on a statin, it can be frustrating for patients; (4) outside sources, such as the media, internet, social networks, and social circles, influence patients' perceptions and often impact the risk benefit discussion; and (5) a decision aid would be beneficial in facilitating clinician decision‐making around SASEs and discussion of SASEs with the patients. Conclusions Statin use among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal because of various patient‐ and clinician‐related factors. The development of a decision aid to facilitate discussion of SASEs, clinician decision‐making, and SASE management may improve statin use in this high‐risk population.

Objective: To identify the prevalence, treatment, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control of individuals with LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL in contemporary clinical practice. Methods: We included adults (age ≥18 years) with LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL, at least one LDL-C level drawn from 255 health systems participating in Cerner HealthFacts database (2000–2017, n ​= ​4,623,851), and a detailed examination within Duke University Health System (DUHS, 2015–2017, n ​= ​267,710). Factors associated with LDL-C control were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression modeling. Results: The cross-sectional prevalence of LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL was 3.0% in Cerner (n ​= ​139,539/4,623,851) and 2.9% at DUHS (n ​= ​7728/267,710); among these, rates of repeat LDL-C measurement within 13 months were low: 27.9% (n ​= ​38,960) in Cerner, 54.5% (n ​= ​4211) at DUHS. Of patients with follow-up LDL-C levels, 23.6% in Cerner had a 50% of greater reduction in LDL-C, 18.3% achieved an LDL-C

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has consumed our healthcare system, with immediate resource focus on the management of high numbers of critically ill patients. Those that fare poorly with COVID-19 infection more commonly have cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension and diabetes. There are also several other conditions that raise concern for the welfare of patients with and at high risk for CVD during this pandemic. Traditional ambulatory care is disrupted and many patients are delaying or deferring necessary care, including preventive care. New impediments to medication access and adherence have arisen. Social distancing measures can increase social isolation and alter physical activity and nutrition patterns. Virtually all facility based cardiac rehabilitation programs have temporarily closed. If not promptly addressed, these changes may result in delayed waves of vulnerable patients presenting for urgent and preventable CVD events.Here, we provide several recommendations to mitigate the adverse effects of these disruptions in outpatient care. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers should be continued in patients already taking these medications. Where possible, it is strongly preferred to continue visits via telehealth, and patients should be counselled about promptly reporting new symptoms. Barriers to medication access should be reviewed with patients at every contact, with implementation of strategies to ensure ongoing provision of medications. Team-based care should be leveraged to enhance the continuity of care and adherence to lifestyle recommendations. Patient encounters should include discussion of safe physical activity options and access to healthy food choices. Implementation of adaptive strategies for cardiac rehabilitation is recommended, including home based cardiac rehab, to ensure continuity of this essential service. While the practical implementation of these strategies will vary by local situation, there are a broad range of strategies available to ensure ongoing continuity of care and health preservation for those at higher risk of CVD during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) versus cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) versus both CAD and CeVD (CAD&CeVD). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with CeVD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and CeVD&CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient‐perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with CeVD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91), or guideline‐recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with CeVD only were also less likely to achieve low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol

Background Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation. Methods and Results This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin. Conclusions More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Treatment Guideline increased the number of primary prevention patients eligible for statin therapy, yet uptake of these guidelines has been modest. Little is known of how primary care provider (PCP) beliefs influence statin prescription. Methods and Results We surveyed 164 PCPs from a community‐based North Carolina network in 2017 about statin therapy. We evaluated statin initiation among the PCPs’ statin‐eligible patients between 2014 and 2015 without a previous prescription. Seventy‐two PCPs (43.9%) completed the survey. The median estimate of the relative risk reduction for high‐intensity statins was 45% (interquartile range, 25%–50%). A minority of providers (27.8%) believed statins caused diabetes mellitus, and only 16.7% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most PCPs (97.2%) believed that statins cause myopathy, and 72.3% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most (77.7%) reported always/very often using the 10‐year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculator, although many reported that in most cases other risk factors or patient preferences influenced prescribing (59.8% and 43.1%, respectively). Of 6172 statin‐eligible patients, 22.3% received a prescription for a moderate‐ or high‐intensity statin at follow‐up. Providers reporting greater reliance on risk factors beyond atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk were less likely to prescribe statins. Conclusions Although beliefs and approaches to statin discussions vary among community PCPs, new prescription rates are low and minimally associated with those beliefs. These results highlight the complexity of increasing statin prescriptions for primary prevention and suggest that strategies to facilitate standardized discussions and to address external influences on patient beliefs warrant future study.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) to identify untreated patients with LDL‐C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid‐lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL‐C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL‐C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart‐documented LDL‐C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non–college graduates (all P

BackgroundCurrent statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and ResultsWe compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline‐recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were >75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high‐dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those >75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high‐dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high‐intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [P75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high‐intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adults.

BackgroundThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines recommend high‐intensity statins for patients after myocardial infarction (MI) rather than treating to a low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal, as the previous ATP III (Adult Treatment Panel third report) guidelines had advised. Methods and ResultsTo evaluate the frequency of postdischarge lipid testing and high‐intensity statin use among MI patients discharged on a statin during the ATP III guidelines era, we linked ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry data to Medicare claims for 11 046 MI patients aged ≥65 years who were discharged alive on a statin from 347 hospitals (2007–2009). Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the association between lipid testing and 1‐year high‐intensity statin use. Only 21% of MI patients were discharged on a high‐intensity statin. By 90 days after MI, 44% of patients discharged on a statin underwent lipid testing (43% on low‐ or moderate‐intensity statins and 49% on high‐intensity statins; P=0.001). Follow‐up lipid testing rates were 47% among patients with in‐hospital low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL and 47% among newly prescribed statin recipients. By 1 year, only 14% of patients were on high‐intensity statins. Only 4% of patients discharged on low‐ or moderate‐dose statin were uptitrated to high intensity; postdischarge lipid testing was associated with a slightly higher likelihood of high‐intensity statin use by 1 year (5.4% versus 2.9%, adjusted odds ratio: 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.52–2.41). ConclusionsPrevious guidelines recommended low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal‐directed statin therapy, but lipid testing and high‐intensity statin use were infrequent after MI. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines may promote more intensive cardiovascular risk reduction by eliminating treatment dependence on lipid testing.

BackgroundUnderstanding the relative risk of cardiovascular versus noncardiovascular death is important for designing clinical trials. These risks may differ depending on patient age, sex, and type of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and ResultsIMPROVE‐IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) was a randomized controlled trial of simvastatin plus either ezetimibe or placebo following stabilized ACS. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent committee. We compared the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death for patients with unstable angina/non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) and ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), in those

Rates of delay and refusal of recommended childhood vaccines are increasing in many U.S. communities. Children’s health care providers have a strong influence on parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about vaccines. Provider attitudes towards immunizations vary and affect their immunization advocacy. One factor that may contribute to this variability is their familiarity with vaccine-preventable diseases and their sequelae. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of health care provider year of graduation with vaccines and vaccine-preventable disease beliefs. We conducted a cross sectional survey in 2005 of primary care providers identified by parents of children whose children were fully vaccinated or exempt from one or more school immunization requirements. We examined the association of provider graduation cohort (5 years) with beliefs on immunization, disease susceptibility, disease severity, vaccine safety, and vaccine efficacy. Surveys were completed by 551 providers (84.3% response rate). More recent health care provider graduates had 15% decreased odds of believing vaccines are efficacious compared to graduates from a previous 5 year period; had lower odds of believing that many commonly used childhood vaccines were safe; and 3.7% of recent graduates believed that immunizations do more harm than good. Recent health care provider graduates have a perception of the risk-benefit balance of immunization, which differs from that of their older counterparts. This change has the potential to be reflected in their immunization advocacy and affect parental attitudes.

BACKGROUND:The burden of Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) is typically underestimated in routine surveillance. Updated estimates are needed following the recent WHO position paper on rubella and recent GAVI initiatives, funding rubella vaccination in eligible countries. Previous estimates considered the year 1996 and only 78 (developing) countries. METHODS:We reviewed the literature to identify rubella seroprevalence studies conducted before countries introduced rubella-containing vaccination (RCV). These data and the estimated vaccination coverage in the routine schedule and mass campaigns were incorporated in mathematical models to estimate the CRS incidence in 1996 and 2000-2010 for each country, region and globally. RESULTS:The estimated CRS decreased in the three regions (Americas, Europe and Eastern Mediterranean) which had introduced widespread RCV by 2010, reaching