Search

Background: Current guidelines recommend the reporting of incidental coronary artery calcification (CAC) on non-electrocardigram-gated computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest. The finding of incidental moderate or severe CAC on non-cardiac non-contrast chest CT correlates with a CAC score ≥ 100 Agatston units, a guideline-based indication for a clinician-patient discussion regarding the initiation of statin therapy. In contemporary practice, whether the presence and severity of incidental CAC are routinely reported on such CT scans of the chest is unknown., Methods: At a major university hospital, we collected a one-month convenience sample of 297 patients who had chest CT imaging for indications other than lung cancer screening (OICT) and 42 patients who underwent lung cancer chest CT screening (LSCT). We evaluated reporting patterns of incidental CAC in the body and impression of the reports as compared to the overreading of such studies by a board-certified CT chest radiologist. We hypothesized and demonstrated that there was underreporting of incidental CAC on these scans. We then undertook an initiative to educate reporting radiologists on the importance of reporting CAC and implemented a reporting template change to encourage routine reporting. Then we repeated another one-month sample (n= 363 for the OICT and n= 63 for the LSCT groups) to evaluate reporting patterns following our intervention., Results: The presence of incidental moderate and severe CAC was systematically underreported in the OICT group (0 and 4.8 %) and the severity was never mentioned in the impression of reports. In the LSCT group, the presence of incidental moderate and severe CAC was also underreported (66.7 % and 75 %) and the severity of CAC was mentioned 50 % of the time in the impression of the reports. Following the initiation of an educational program and radiology reporting template change, there was a significant increase in reporting of moderate or severe CAC in the OICT group (0 vs. 80.0 %, p < 0.001) and (4.8 vs. 93.5 %, p < 0.001) respectively and a significant increase in the reporting of the severity of incidental CAC for those with severe CAC in the LSCT group (50 vs. 94.1 %, p=0.006)., Conclusion: Despite guideline recommendations, incidental CAC was underreported at a large academic center. We implemented a system that significantly improved reporting patterns of incidental CAC. Failure to report incidental CAC represents a missed opportunity to initiate preventive therapies. Hospital systems interested in improving the quality of their radiology reporting procedures should examine their practices to assure that CAC quantification is routinely performed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors confirm no relationship with industry, disclosures, or source of funding for the work presented in this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose of Review: To discuss and review the technical considerations, fundamentals, and guideline-based indications for coronary artery calcium scoring, and the use of other non-invasive imaging modalities, such as extra-coronary calcification in cardiovascular risk prediction., Recent Findings: The most robust evidence for the use of CAC scoring is in select individuals, 40-75 years of age, at borderline to intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Recent US recommendations support the use of CAC scoring in varying clinical scenarios. First, in adults with very high CAC scores (CAC ≥ 1000), the use of high-intensity statin therapy and, if necessary, guideline-based add-on LDL-C lowering therapies (ezetimibe, PCSK9-inhibitors) to achieve a ≥ 50% reduction in LDL-C and optimally an LDL-C < 70 mg/dL is recommended. In patients with a CAC score ≥ 100 at low risk of bleeding, the benefits of aspirin use may outweigh the risk of bleeding. Other applications of CAC scoring include risk estimation on non-contrast CT scans of the chest, risk prediction in younger patients (< 40 years of age), its value as a gatekeeper for the decision to perform nuclear stress testing, and to aid in risk stratification in patients presenting with low-risk chest pain. There is a correlation between extra-coronary calcification (e.g., breast arterial calcification, aortic calcification, and aortic valve calcification) and incident ASCVD events. However, its role in informing lipid management remains unclear. Identification of coronary calcium in selected patients is the single best non-invasive imaging modality to identify future ASCVD risk and inform lipid-lowering therapy decision-making., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose of Review: To provide a systematic approach to management of the patient with statin-attributed muscle symptoms., Recent Findings: We examined the prevalence of statin intolerance, the role of the nocebo effect, key findings in the patient's history and laboratory studies, the potential value of coronary calcium scoring, and the importance of shared decision-making in considering statin re-initiation. Most patients with statin-attributed muscle symptoms can be successfully treated with statins or a combination of statins and non-statins to achieve successful ASCVD risk reduction., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Non-Hispanic (NH) Black participants have been under-represented in studies of cardiovascular disease., Objective: We sought to determine the trends of reporting and representation of NH Black subjects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lipid-lowering therapies demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk reduction benefit., Methods: The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990-2020. Studies of lipid-lowering therapies (i.e., statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [PCSK9], and icosapent ethyl) with proven ASCVD benefit, sample sizes of at least 1000 subjects and follow-up of at least 1 year were included (40 RCTs, N=306 747 total participants). We examined articles and supplementary material for participant-level race data. Using United States disease prevalence data, the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) metric was used to estimate the representation of NH Black subjects compared with their reported disease burden (i.e., < 0.8 indicated under-representation; > 1.2, over-representation; and 0.8 to <1.2, adequate representation)., Results: The median (interquartile range) number of participants per trial was 4871 (2434-10077). NH Black enrollees comprised 7.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-15.4%) of the total number of subjects reported. During the time intervals 1990-1995, 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2020, NH Black participation was 0%, 1.1%, 4.4%, 4.8%, 0.2% and 0.7% respectively (P for trend <0.001). For statin trials, the participation of NH Black subjects was reported in 0 studies between 1990-1995 and in 9 of 28 trials from 1996-2020. For ezetimibe and icosapent ethyl, NH Black participants were reported in 0 of 3 and 0 of 1 studies, respectively. For trials of PCSK9 inhibitors, NH Black subjects were reported in 2 of 5 (40%). NH Black participants were under-represented compared with their disease burden in studies evaluating subjects with diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, stable coronary artery disease, and acute coronary syndrome (PPR < 0.8 for all)., Conclusion: NH Black participants are markedly under-represented, and results are under-reported. The inclusion of population and disease specific representation of NH Black persons and their related social determinants of health will help to address the disparity in preventive care for this historically undertreated population., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Evidence from Mendelian randomization studies suggest that lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has a causal role in the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. However, guidelines and consensus statement recommendations vary regarding how clinicians should incorporate Lp(a) into patient care. To provide practical answers to key questions pertaining to Lp(a) that clinicians will find useful when assessing and treating patients, a global think tank was convened. Representatives from seven national and international stakeholder organizations answered questions that were focused on: Lp(a) measurement; ethnic, gender, and age considerations; factoring Lp(a) into risk assessment; and current and emerging treatment options for elevated Lp(a). This manuscript summarizes the finding from this global think tank. Areas requiring further investigation were identified, and the need to standardize reporting of Lp(a) levels to ensure harmonization and comparability across laboratories and research studies is emphasized., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest JJS, CEO, LM, and AM have none. RDS has received honoraria outside this work related to consulting, speaker, or research activities from: Abbott, Ache, Amgen, Amryt, Astra Zeneca, EMS, Esperion, Getz Pharma, Kowa, Hypera, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, PTC Therapeutics, Roche and Sanofi. SV has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, World Heart Federation, Tahir and Jooma Family and honorarium from the American College of Cardiology in his role as the Associate Editor for Innovations (acc.org). MLK has received honoraria related to consulting, research and/or speaker activities from Ayma, Novartis, Abcentra, and Amgen. MDS has served on Scientific Advisory Boards with the following entities: Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is a need to identify high-risk features that predict early-onset atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The authors provide insights to help clinicians identify and address high-risk conditions in the 20- to 39-year age range (young adults). These include tobacco use, elevated blood pressure/hypertension, family history of premature ASCVD, primary severe hypercholesterolemia such as familial hypercholesterolemia, diabetes with diabetes-specific risk-enhancing factors, or the presence of multiple other risk-enhancing factors, including in females, a history of pre-eclampsia or menopause under age 40. The authors update current thinking on lipid risk factors such as triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, or lipoprotein (a) that are useful in understanding an individual's long-term ASCVD risk. The authors review emerging strategies, such as coronary artery calcium and polygenic risk scores in this age group, that have potential clinical utility, but whose best use remains uncertain. Finally, the authors discuss both the obstacles and opportunities for addressing prevention in early adulthood., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Rigotti received support from National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant # R01HL111821; has received grants from NCI, NIDA, and Achieve Life Sciences; has been a consultant for Achieve Life Sciences; and has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Mora received support from NIH grant # K24HL136852; has received grants from the NIH, outside this work; and has been a consultant for Pfizer and Quest Diagnostics. Dr Khan has received support from American Heart Association grant #19TPA34890060 and the NIH grants P30AG059988 and P30DK092939, outside this work. Dr Navar has received funding for research to her institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen; and has received honoraria and consulting fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Esperion, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Regeneron, NovoNordisk, Novartis, The Medicines Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner, 89Bio, and Pfizer. Dr Blaha has received grants from the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, American Heart Association, Amgen Foundation, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk; and has served on advisory boards for Amgen, Sanofi, Regeneron, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Akcea, Kowa, 89Bio, Kaleido, Inozyme, and Roche. Dr Pencina has received funding outside the work from the nonprofit Doggone Foundation/McGill University Health Centre; has received grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Amgen to his institution; and has served on an advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For primary prevention, statin therapy reduces the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in adults with intermediate or high estimated 10-year risk using traditional population-based risk calculators. While a variety of reported symptoms may limit statin adherence, muscle complaints, whether typical or atypical of that associated with statin therapy, are the most common reported by patients. Because additional testing, alteration in the patient's medical regimen and subsequent medical visits are often required, an informed clinician-patient discussion and shared decision making are necessary to achieve the best outcomes. The authors provide support for the perspective that coronary calcium scoring, by individualizing estimated risk and helping to identify those most likely to benefit, plays a vital role in preventive therapy decision-making for the primary prevention patient with troublesome muscle complaints attributed to statin therapy., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: There are currently no recommendations guiding when best to perform coronary artery calcium (CAC) scanning among young adults to identify those susceptible for developing premature atherosclerosis., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the ideal age at which a first CAC scan has the highest utility according to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factor profile., Methods: We included 22,346 CAC Consortium participants aged 30-50 years who underwent noncontrast computed tomography. Sex-specific equations were derived from multivariable logistic modeling to estimate the expected probability of CAC >0 according to age and the presence of ASCVD risk factors., Results: Participants were on average 43.5 years of age, 25% were women, and 34% had CAC >0, in whom the median CAC score was 20. Compared with individuals without risk factors, those with diabetes developed CAC 6.4 years earlier on average, whereas smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and a family history of coronary heart disease were individually associated with developing CAC 3.3-4.3 years earlier. Using a testing yield of 25% for detecting CAC >0, the optimal age for a potential first scan would be at 36.8 years (95% CI: 35.5-38.4 years) in men and 50.3 years (95% CI: 48.7-52.1 years) in women with diabetes, and 42.3 years (95% CI: 41.0-43.9 years) in men and 57.6 years (95% CI: 56.0-59.5 years) in women without risk factors., Conclusions: Our derived risk equations among health-seeking young adults enriched in ASCVD risk factors inform the expected prevalence of CAC >0 and can be used to determine an appropriate age to initiate clinical CAC testing to identify individuals most susceptible for early/premature atherosclerosis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This project was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (L30 HL110027). Dr Blaha has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, American Heart Association, Amgen, and Aetna Foundation; and has received honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Regeneron, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Akcea, 89Bio, Zogenix, Tricida, and Gilead. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Review of the US and European literature indicates that most patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD are not treated with high-intensity statins, despite strong clinical-trial evidence of maximal statin benefit. High-intensity statins are recommended for 2 categories of patients: those with ASCVD (secondary prevention) and high-risk patients without clinical ASCVD. Most patients with ASCVD are candidates for high-intensity statins, with a goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction of 50% or greater. A subgroup of patients with ASCVD are at very high risk and can benefit by the addition of nonstatin drugs (ezetimibe with or without bile acid sequestrant or bempedoic acid and/or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor). High-risk primary prevention patients are those with severe hypercholesterolemia, diabetes with associated risk factors, and patients aged 40 to 75 years with a 10-year risk for ASCVD of 20% or greater. In patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% to less than 20%, coronary artery calcium scoring is an option; if the coronary artery calcium score is 300 or more Agatston units, the patient can be up-classified to high risk. If high-intensity statin treatment is not tolerated in high-risk patients, a reasonable approach is to combine a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe. In very high-risk patients, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels substantially and hence reduce risk as well., (Copyright © 2021 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (U.S.) and incurs significant cost to the healthcare system. Management of cholesterol remains central for ASCVD prevention and has been the focus of multiple national guidelines. In this review, we compare the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Cholesterol guidelines. We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We discuss why the VA/DoD and AHA/ACC may have reached different conclusions on these key issues., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Salim S. Virani, Research support: Department of Veterans Affairs, World Heart Federation, Tahir and Jooma Family. Honorarium: American College of Cardiology (Associate Editor for Innovations, acc.org). Vijay Nambi, Site PI for study sponsored by AMGEN. Supported by VA MERIT award. Provisional patent along with BCM, Roche on use of biomarkers in prediction of Heart failure, (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a proven causative factor for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Individuals with genetic conditions associated with lifelong very low LDL-C levels can be healthy. We now possess the pharmacological armamentarium (statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors) to reduce LDL-C to an unprecedented extent. Increasing numbers of patients are expected to achieve very low (<30 mg/dL) LDL-C. Cardiovascular event reduction increases log linearly in association with lowering LDL-C, without reaching any clear plateau even when very low LDL-C levels are achieved. It is still controversial whether lower LDL-C levels are associated with significant clinical adverse effects (e.g. new-onset diabetes mellitus or possibly haemorrhagic stroke) and long-term data are needed to address safety concerns. This review presents the familial conditions characterized by very low LDL-C, analyses trials with lipid-lowering agents where patients attained very low LDL-C, and summarizes the benefits and potential adverse effects associated with achieving very low LDL-C. Given the potential for cardiovascular benefit and short-term safe profile of very low LDL-C, it may be advantageous to attain such low levels in specific high-risk populations. Further studies are needed to compare the net clinical benefit of non-LDL-C-lowering interventions with very low LDL-C approaches, in addition to comparing the efficacy and safety of very low LDL-C levels vs. current recommended targets., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

An Expert Panel of the National Lipid Association reviewed the evidence related to the use of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in clinical practice for adults seen for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Recommendations for optimal use of this test in adults of various races/ethnicities, ages and multiple domains of primary prevention, including those with a 10-year ASCVD risk <20%, those with diabetes or the metabolic syndrome, and those with severe hypercholesterolemia were provided. Recommendations were also made on optimal timing for repeat calcium scoring after an initial test, use of CAC scoring in those taking statins, and its role in informing the clinician patient discussion on the benefit of aspirin and anti-hypertensive drug therapy. Finally, a vision is provided for the future of coronary calcium scoring., (Copyright © 2020 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite consensus that excessive circulating concentrations of apoB-lipoproteins is a key driver for the atherosclerotic process and that treatments that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering by up-regulation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol receptor expression reduces that risk, divergent viewpoints on interpretation of study data have resulted in substantial differences in European and American lipid guideline recommendations. This article explores those differences and highlights the importance of understanding guideline-based lipid management to improve patient care and reduce the risk of clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Allocation of statin therapy for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in borderline- and intermediate-risk patients has traditionally been based on population-based global risk assessment and other clinical and laboratory characteristics. Patient-specific treatment decisions are needed to provide maximal benefit and avoid unnecessary treatment. Guideline-based lipid management proposes that coronary artery calcium scoring is reasonable to implement in patients with a 10-year risk of 5.0% to 19.9% (borderline to intermediate risk) by using the pooled cohort equations when the decision about whether to initiate statin therapy is uncertain. We report data from both observational studies and a large primary prevention randomized controlled trial that support the position that this decision is, in fact, uncertain in about half of such patients because of risk misclassification. Such misclassification can be largely avoided by more widespread implementation of coronary calcium scoring, which helps to identify those with coronary artery calcium scores of 0, a finding associated with a less than 5.0% 10-year probability of an ASCVD event. Deferral of statin therapy in such patients, in the absence of smoking, diabetes, or a family history of premature ASCVD, provides more individualized and appropriate care and avoids the expense and potential adverse effects of statin therapy in those with low potential for absolute risk reduction. A rationale is also provided for the importance of coronary artery calcium scoring in women 50 years and older, possibly in place of 1 screening mammogram in women at least 55 years of age to avoid incremental radiation exposure, on the basis of the substantially higher lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality from ASCVD than from breast cancer. In patients with borderline or intermediate ASCVD risk, coronary artery calcium scoring should be used, whenever possible, as an aid to rational statin allocation for the primary prevention of ASCVD., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients who are at high or very high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events derive the greatest benefit when clinicians prescribe evidence-based preventive therapies. The writing process used in the creation of the 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol employed a thorough evaluation of the highest quality evidence, and synthesis of this evidence into actionable recommendations for ASCVD risk reduction. Clinical trials supporting the addition of ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, or both to evidence-based statins provide the basis for the updated recommendations for the preventive care of these patients. The publication in late 2018 of a randomized controlled trial supporting the net ASCVD risk reduction benefit of adding icosapent ethyl to statins in selected hypertriglyceridemic patients with clinical ASCVD and/or type 2 diabetes with multiple additional risk markers provides the rationale for incorporation of icosapent ethyl therapy into future ASCVD preventive care regimens., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Representatives from the National Lipid Association (NLA) participated in the development of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol, which reaffirmed that lifestyle changes and statin treatment are therapeutic cornerstones for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk reduction. It also updated prior recommendations to incorporate newer data demonstrating ASCVD risk reduction with ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 inhibitors as adjuncts to statin therapy for patients at high and very-high ASCVD risk. The 2018 Guideline was finalized shortly before full results were available from a randomized, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial [Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT)] that examined the effects of icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4 g/d on major adverse cardiovascular events in selected high- or very high-risk, statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides. The primary outcome variable of first major adverse cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization and hospitalization for unstable angina) was reduced by 25% (95% confidence interval 17%-32%, P < .001). REDUCE-IT served as the primary basis for the NLA's review of evidence for the use of IPE for ASCVD risk reduction. Based on this review, the NLA position is that for patients aged ≥45 years with clinical ASCVD, or aged ≥50 years with diabetes mellitus requiring medication plus ≥1 additional risk factor, with fasting triglycerides 135 to 499 mg/dL on high-intensity or maximally tolerated statin therapy (±ezetimibe), treatment with IPE is recommended for ASCVD risk reduction (evidence rating: class I; evidence level: B-R)., (Copyright © 2019 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this NLA Roundtable four members of the writing committee join the Editor to discuss the process of developing the AHA/ACC/Multisociety Cholesterol Guidelines, which were unveiled in November 2018. They also provide personal insights on the finished product. Highlights include 1) the committee's decision to summarize 10 take-home messages providing rapid communication of key points, 2) emphasis on clinician -patient discussion, which may bring up issues specific to women or other population groups at risk, 3) personalizing risk with risk-enhancing factors such as LDL-C ≥ 160 mg/dl, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney disease, pre-eclampsia, premature menopause, high risk ethnicity, inflammatory diseases, hypertriglyceridemia and in selected cases, Lp(a), hs-CRP and apoB; 4) using coronary artery calcium scoring when a risk decision is uncertain in intermediate risk patients 5) monitoring for goals of moderate or intensive LDL cholesterol reduction, 6) thresholds for adding nonstatin LDL-lowering therapy in those at very high risk or for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and 7) cost value assessment for expensive treatment., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with elevated levels estimated to be prevalent in 20% of the population. Observational and genetic evidence strongly support a causal relationship between high plasma concentrations of Lp(a) and increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, and valvular aortic stenosis. In this scientific statement, we review an array of evidence-based considerations for testing of Lp(a) in clinical practice and the utilization of Lp(a) levels to inform treatment strategies in primary and secondary prevention., (Copyright © 2019 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although lipid guidelines provide updated, practical, and clinically relevant information that may be used in patient care, the continuing publication of new evidence and the inevitable treatment gaps present in all guidelines reinforce the importance of clinical judgment in shared decision making. This article explores the development of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Cholesterol Guidelines and the evidence base for managing patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, provides more recent high-quality evidence, and identifies existing treatment gaps that should be considered when caring for such patients. Although it was submitted prior to publication of the 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol, this review also includes key takeaway messages from the updated guideline., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The author has completed and submitted the Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal Conflict of Interest Statement and none were reported.

In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C <190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes. Based on feedback and further deliberation, the ECDP writing committee down-graded recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use, recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe. For clarification, the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing. Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence, in which case justification is provided., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

An Expert Panel convened by the National Lipid Association was charged with updating the recommendations on the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) antibody therapy that were provided by the 2015 National Lipid Association Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia: Part 2. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of these agents in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and have confirmed their excellent safety profile. A cardiovascular outcomes study has shown that these agents reduce incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in patents with stable ASCVD and concomitant risk factors. The current update provides the Expert Panel's evidence-based recommendations on the clinical utility of PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with stable ASCVD, progressive ASCVD, LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL (including polygenic hypercholesterolemia, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and the homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia phenotype) and very-high-risk patients with statin intolerance., (Copyright © 2017 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin and joints that may also have systemic inflammatory effects, including the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Multiple epidemiologic studies have demonstrated increased rates of CVD in psoriasis patients, although a causal link has not been established. A growing body of evidence suggests that sub-clinical systemic inflammation may develop in psoriasis patients, even from a young age. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of atherosclerosis and identify specific clinical risk factors associated with early vascular inflammation., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of a tertiary care cohort of psoriasis patients using coronary artery calcium (CAC) score and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) to detect atherosclerosis, along with high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) to measure inflammation. Psoriasis patients and controls were recruited from our tertiary care dermatology clinic. Presence of atherosclerosis was defined using validated numeric values within CAC and CIMT imaging. Descriptive data comparing groups was analyzed using Welch's t test and Pearson Chi square tests. Logistic regression was used to analyze clinical factors associated with atherosclerosis, and linear regression to evaluate the relationship between psoriasis and hsCRP., Results: 296 patients were enrolled, with 283 (207 psoriatic and 76 controls) having all data for the hsCRP and atherosclerosis analysis. Atherosclerosis was found in 67.6 % of psoriasis subjects versus 52.6 % of controls; Psoriasis patients were found to have a 2.67-fold higher odds of having atherosclerosis compared to controls [95 % CI (1.2, 5.92); p = 0.016], after adjusting for age, gender, race, BMI, smoking, HDL and hsCRP. In addition, a non-significant trend was found between HsCRP and psoriasis severity, as measured by PASI, PGA, or BSA, again after adjusting for confounders., Conclusions: A tertiary care cohort of psoriasis patients have a high prevalence of early atherosclerosis, increased hsCRP, and psoriasis remains a risk factor for the presence of atherosclerosis even after adjustment of key confounding clinical factors. Psoriasis may contribute to an accelerated systemic inflammatory cascade resulting in increased risk of CVD and CV events.

Background: Cardiovascular outcomes trials of fibrates, niacin, or omega-3 fatty acids alone, or added to a statin, have not consistently demonstrated reduced risk, but larger, statistically significant clinical benefits have been reported in subgroups with elevated triglycerides (TG) and/or elevated TG plus low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)., Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of the effects of therapies targeting TG and TG-rich lipoprotein cholesterol on cardiovascular disease event risk in subjects with elevated TG or elevated TG paired with low HDL-C., Methods: Publications were identified using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Internet Stroke Center. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to generate summary relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed by χ(2) and I(2) statistics, and the impact of each trial was assessed in one study-removed sensitivity analyses., Results: Six trials of fibrates, 2 of niacin, 1 of fibrate + niacin, and 1 of omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl esters were identified. For the prespecified primary cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease end point used in each trial, the summary relative risk estimate (95% confidence interval) for subjects with elevated TG was 0.82 (0.73-0.91), p-heterogeneity = 0.13, I(2) = 36.2, and for subjects with elevated TG and low-HDL-C, it was 0.71 (0.63-0.81), p-heterogeneity = 0.52, I(2) = 0.0. There was no evidence of publication bias, and the results remained statistically significant when each individual trial was removed., Conclusion: Drugs that substantially, but not exclusively, lower TG and TG-rich lipoprotein cholesterol may have cardiovascular benefits in individuals with elevated TG, particularly if accompanied by low HDL-C., (Copyright © 2016 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bariatric procedures often improve lipid levels in patients with obesity. This 2-part scientific statement examines the potential lipid benefits of bariatric procedures and represents contributions from authors representing the National Lipid Association, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, and the Obesity Medicine Association. The foundation for this scientific statement was based on data published through June 2015. Part 1 of this 2-part scientific statement provides an overview of: (1) adipose tissue, cholesterol metabolism, and lipids; (2) bariatric procedures, cholesterol metabolism, and lipids; (3) endocrine factors relevant to lipid influx, synthesis, metabolism, and efflux; (4) immune factors relevant to lipid influx, synthesis, metabolism, and efflux; (5) bariatric procedures, bile acid metabolism, and lipids; and (6) bariatric procedures, intestinal microbiota, and lipids, with specific emphasis on how the alterations in the microbiome by bariatric procedures influence obesity, bile acids, and inflammation, which in turn, may all affect lipid levels. Included in part 2 of this comprehensive scientific statement will be a review of: (1) the importance of nutrients (fats, carbohydrates, and proteins) and their absorption on lipid levels; (2) the effects of bariatric procedures on gut hormones and lipid levels; (3) the effects of bariatric procedures on nonlipid cardiovascular disease risk factors; (4) the effects of bariatric procedures on lipid levels; (5) effects of bariatric procedures on cardiovascular disease; and finally (6) the potential lipid effects of vitamin, mineral, and trace element deficiencies that may occur after bariatric procedures. This document represents the executive summary of part 1., (Copyright © 2016 National Lipid Association. All rights reserved.)

Bariatric procedures often improve lipid levels in patients with obesity. This 2 part scientific statement examines the potential lipid benefits of bariatric procedures and represents the contributions from authors representing the National Lipid Association, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, and the Obesity Medicine Association. The foundation for this scientific statement was based on published data through June 2015. Part 1 of this 2 part scientific statement provides an overview of: (1) adipose tissue, cholesterol metabolism, and lipids; (2) bariatric procedures, cholesterol metabolism, and lipids; (3) endocrine factors relevant to lipid influx, synthesis, metabolism, and efflux; (4) immune factors relevant to lipid influx, synthesis, metabolism, and efflux; (5) bariatric procedures, bile acid metabolism, and lipids; and (6) bariatric procedures, intestinal microbiota, and lipids, with specific emphasis on how the alterations in the microbiome by bariatric procedures influence obesity, bile acids, and inflammation, which in turn, may all affect lipid levels. Included in part 2 of this comprehensive scientific statement will be a review of (1) the importance of nutrients (fats, carbohydrates, and proteins) and their absorption on lipid levels; (2) the effects of bariatric procedures on gut hormones and lipid levels; (3) the effects of bariatric procedures on nonlipid cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors; (4) the effects of bariatric procedures on lipid levels; (5) effects of bariatric procedures on CVD; and finally, (6) the potential lipid effects of vitamin, mineral, and trace element deficiencies that may occur after bariatric procedures. This document represents the full report of part 1., (Copyright © 2016 National Lipid Association. All rights reserved.)

The National Lipid Association (NLA) Annual Summary of Clinical Lipidology is a yearly updated summary of principles important to the patient-centered evaluation, management, and care of patients with dyslipidemia. This summary is intended to be a "living document," with future annual updates based on emerging science, clinical considerations, and new NLA Position, Consensus, and Scientific Statements, thus providing an ongoing resource that applies the latest in medical science towards the clinical management of patients with dyslipidemia. Topics include the NLA Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, genetics, Familial Hypercholesterolemia, secondary causes of dyslipidemia, biomarkers and advanced lipid testing, nutrition, physical activity, obesity, adiposopathy, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, lipid pharmacotherapy, lipid-altering drug interactions, lipoprotein apheresis, dyslipidemia management and treatment based upon age (children, adolescents, and older individuals), dyslipidemia considerations based upon race, ethnicity and gender, dyslipidemia and human immune virus infection, dyslipidemia and immune disorders, adherence strategies and collaborative care, and lipid-altering drugs in development. Hyperlinks direct the reader to sentinel online tables, charts, and figures relevant to lipidology, access to online atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculators, worldwide lipid guidelines, recommendations, and position/scientific statements, as well as links to online audio files, websites, slide shows, applications, continuing medical education opportunities, and patient information., (Copyright © 2016 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

An Expert Panel convened by the National Lipid Association previously developed a consensus set of recommendations for the patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine (part 1). These were guided by the principle that reducing elevated levels of atherogenic cholesterol (non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) reduces the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This document represents a continuation of the National Lipid Association recommendations developed by a diverse panel of experts who examined the evidence base and provided recommendations regarding the following topics: (1) lifestyle therapies; (2) groups with special considerations, including children and adolescents, women, older patients, certain ethnic and racial groups, patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus, patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with residual risk despite statin and lifestyle therapies; and (3) strategies to improve patient outcomes by increasing adherence and using team-based collaborative care., (Copyright © 2015 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Roundtable in this issue of the journal has to do with a very important topic that has generated much debate and confusion over the years. Do women and men need and receive the same type and intensity of drug therapy to appropriately reduce the incidence of major vascular events? Second, do women respond to lipid-lowering medications with similar changes in lipoprotein levels and with equivalent reduction in major cardiovascular clinical events? I am very pleased to have 3 experts in different aspects of this issue. Dr Rachel Mackey is a cardiovascular epidemiologist in the University of Pittsburgh who is now actively involved in analyzing large data sets from community-based observational studies. Dr Thomas Pearson has many years of cardiovascular experience in clinical trials and observational studies that go to the issues faced by physicians in practice. He is the current Executive Vice President for Research and Education at the University of Florida Health Science Center. Dr Carl Orringer is a professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine who has years of experience in teaching preventive cardiology., (Copyright © 2015 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The leadership of the National Lipid Association convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. An Executive Summary of those recommendations was previously published. This document provides support for the recommendations outlined in the Executive Summary. The major conclusions include (1) an elevated level of cholesterol carried by circulating apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins (non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], termed atherogenic cholesterol) is a root cause of atherosclerosis, the key underlying process contributing to most clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events; (2) reducing elevated levels of atherogenic cholesterol will lower ASCVD risk in proportion to the extent that atherogenic cholesterol is reduced. This benefit is presumed to result from atherogenic cholesterol lowering through multiple modalities, including lifestyle and drug therapies; (3) the intensity of risk-reduction therapy should generally be adjusted to the patient's absolute risk for an ASCVD event; (4) atherosclerosis is a process that often begins early in life and progresses for decades before resulting a clinical ASCVD event. Therefore, both intermediate-term and long-term or lifetime risk should be considered when assessing the potential benefits and hazards of risk-reduction therapies; (5) for patients in whom lipid-lowering drug therapy is indicated, statin treatment is the primary modality for reducing ASCVD risk; (6) nonlipid ASCVD risk factors should also be managed appropriately, particularly high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and diabetes mellitus; and (7) the measurement and monitoring of atherogenic cholesterol levels remain an important part of a comprehensive ASCVD prevention strategy., (Copyright © 2015 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. Although many commonalities exist among them, material differences are present as well. The leadership of the National Lipid Association (NLA) convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel and includes: (1) background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; (2) screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; (3) targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; (4) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; (5) atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-as the primary targets of therapy; and (6) lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia., (Copyright © 2014 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To use multimodality imaging to explore the relationship of biomarkers of inflammation, T-cell activation and monocyte activation with coronary calcification and subclinical vascular disease in a population of HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART)., Design: Cross-sectional., Methods: A panel of soluble and cellular biomarkers of inflammation and immune activation was measured in 147 HIV-infected adults on ART with HIV RNA less than 1000 copies/ml and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) 130  mg/dl or less. We examined the relationship of biomarkers to coronary calcium (CAC) score and multiple ultrasound measures of subclinical vascular disease., Results: Overall, median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 46 (40-53) years; three-quarters of participants were male and two-thirds African-American. Median 10-year Framingham risk score was 6%. Participants with CAC more than 0 were older, less likely to be African-American and had higher current and lower nadir CD4 T-cell counts. Most biomarkers were similar between those with and without CAC; however, soluble CD14 was independently associated with CAC after adjustment for traditional risk factors. Among those with a CAC score of zero, T-cell activation and systemic inflammation correlated with carotid intima-media thickness and brachial hyperemic velocity, respectively. Compared with normal participants and those with CAC only, participants with increasing degrees of subclinical vascular disease had higher levels of sCD14, hs-CRP and fibrinogen (all P<0.05)., Conclusion: Soluble CD14 is independently associated with coronary artery calcification, and, among those with detectable calcium, predicts the extent of subclinical disease in other vascular beds. Future studies should investigate the utility of multimodality imaging to characterize vascular disease phenotypes in this population.

Background: Recent studies report independent associations between psoriasis, cardiovascular (CV) events and risk factors. Blood Myeloperoxidase (MPO) from activated myeloid cells is associated with CV risk mainly through lipid oxidation, induction of endothelial dysfunction and release of IL-12 from macrophages., Objectives: To elucidate associations between psoriasis and conventional CV risk factors., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of 100 psoriasis patients and 53 controls, group matched on age, gender and body mass index, to assess levels of MPO in serum, as well as immunohistochemical staining from psoriasis skin lesions, psoriasis uninvolved skin, and normal skin., Results: Although the groups did not differ on waist circumference, glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine or personal history of CV events, psoriasis patients had significantly higher waist-to-hip ratios, blood pressures, proportion of current smokers, and lower high density lipoprotein level than controls. Serum MPO level was elevated 2.5 fold (P<0.001) in psoriasis patients, even after adjusting for the CV risk factors on which the groups differed. MPO did correlate with coronary artery calcification, carotid plaque, carotid intima media thickness and flow mediated dilation, but did not correlate with psoriasis severity. However, MPO was highly expressed in lesional psoriatic skin and colocalized predominantly with CD45(+) CD11b(+) leukocytes. CD11b(+) cell density correlated with circulation MPO levels., Conclusion: Lesional skin CD11b(+) leukocytes activated to generate MPO may contribute to serum levels of MPO. Lesional CD11b(+) cell activity may be an alternative measure of disease burden to PASI that underlies the MPO biomarker for systemic inflammation related to Cardiovascular Disease.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of global mortality, yet its early detection remains a vexing problem of modern medicine. Although the computed tomography (CT) calcium score predicts cardiovascular risk, relatively high cost ($250-400) and radiation dose (1-3 mSv) limit its universal utility as a screening tool. Dual-energy digital subtraction radiography (DE; <$60, 0.07 mSv) enables detection of calcified structures with high sensitivity. In this pilot study, we examined DE radiography's ability to quantify coronary artery calcification (CAC). We identified 25 patients who underwent non-contrast CT and DE chest imaging performed within 12 months using documented CAC as the major inclusion criteria. A DE calcium score was developed based on pixel intensity multiplied by the area of the calcified plaque. DE scores were plotted against CT scores. Subsequently, a validation cohort of 14 additional patients was independently evaluated to confirm the accuracy and precision of CAC quantification, yielding a total of 39 subjects. Among all subjects (n = 39), the DE score demonstrated a correlation coefficient of 0.87 (p < 0.0001) when compared with the CT score. For the 13 patients with CT scores of <400, the correlation coefficient was -0.26. For the 26 patients with CT scores of ≥400, the correlation coefficient yielded 0.86. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of DE radiography to identify patients at the highest cardiovascular risk. DE radiography's accuracy at lower scores remains unclear. Further evaluation of DE radiography as an inexpensive and low-radiation imaging tool to diagnose cardiovascular disease appears warranted.