Cannabis vaping among adults in the United States: Prevalence, trends, and association with high-risk behaviors and adverse respiratory conditions.

The e-cigarette or vaping product-use-associated lung injury outbreak in the United States has raised concerns about the potential health effects of cannabis vaping, a method of cannabis use that is becoming increasingly popular. We used 2017-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data to estimate yearly prevalence and trends of past-30-day cannabis use and vaping among US adults. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the associations of cannabis vaping with high-risk behaviors, asthma, and other respiratory symptoms. Our sample size was 160,209 (53,945-2017; 55,475-2018; and 50,789-2019). Past-30-day cannabis use prevalence increased from 10.0% (95% CI, 9.4%-10.7%) in 2017 to 13.4% (12.8%-12.0%) in 2019. Similarly, past-30-day cannabis vaping prevalence increased from 1.0% (0.8%-1.2%) to 2.0% (1.7%-2.2%) over the same period, with the greatest increase, 1.2% to 3.9%, observed among young adults (18-24 years). Individuals who vaped cannabis were more likely to concurrently vape nicotine. Cannabis vaping was associated with increased odds of heavy alcohol use (aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.45-2.63), binge drinking (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 2.25-3.54), and other high-risk behaviors (aOR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.89-3.24). In analyses adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and body mass index, cannabis vaping was not associated with asthma (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.64-1.64) or other respiratory symptoms (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.44-2.63). Adjusting for nicotine vaping did not substantively alter these associations. The prevalence of past-30-day cannabis vaping has increased, particularly among young adults, and was associated with high-risk behaviors. Although there was no association between cannabis vaping and asthma or other respiratory symptoms, the increasing trends of cannabis vaping, particularly among young adults, raise concern and underscore the need for continued surveillance.

Prevalence, Trends, and Distribution of Nicotine and Marijuana use in E-cigarettes among US adults: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2016-2018.

Use of substances other than nicotine in e-cigarettes, especially marijuana, is becoming increasingly popular in the US. However, population-representative data on such poly-use (nicotine and marijuana) remains limited. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional logistic regression analysis of the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System among 16 US states/territories with data on past 30-day marijuana use to describe the emerging dual nicotine and marijuana vaping population. We additionally examined trends in marijuana use, including marijuana vaping, from 2016 to 2018. Of the 131,807 participants studied, 3068 were current e-cigarette users, among whom 7.1% also vaped marijuana. Prevalence of nicotine-predominant, dual nicotine marijuana, and marijuana-predominant vaping was 3.36%, 0.38% and 1.09%, respectively. Compared to nicotine-predominant vapers, dual and marijuana-predominant vapers were older, had greater proportions of non-Whites, particularly Hispanics, and less likely to be current smokers (nicotine-predominant vs dual vs marijuana-predominant vaping: current tobacco use 44.7 vs 23.7 vs 11.1%). Proportion of dual vapers among current e-cigarette users was 8.6%, 2.6% and 7.1% for 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. Prevalence of marijuana use increased from 8.97% (2016) to 13.1% (2018) while no clear trend was observed for marijuana vaping. Dual nicotine and marijuana vaping is prevalent in the US, and compared to predominantly nicotine vapers such users have higher mean ages, and are more likely to be Blacks, Hispanics, and never cigarette smokers. Marijuana use overall increased from 2016 to 2018. Dual vapers represent a large and important emerging population that will require dedicated study of health effects and tailored regulatory strategies.

The Promise and Peril of Vaping.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The increasing popularity and prevalence of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) use in the USA necessitates careful evaluation of their proposed benefits and potential public health harms. This report provides a detailed review of current scientific evidence on potential benefits and health risks associated with e-cigarette use. RECENT FINDINGS: E-cigarettes were introduced as a less harmful alternative to combustible cigarette smoking. However, evidence on their use as effective and safe smoking cessation aids remains inconclusive. Their rapid uptake among tobacco-naive individuals can lead to nicotine addiction and subsequent cigarette smoking. Although e-cigarettes appear to be relatively safer than combustible cigarettes, they expose users to known harmful constituents whose long-term health risks remain unknown. While e-cigarettes have the potential to aid in cessation of cigarette smoking when used as part of a structured cessation program, use among tobacco-naive youth and long-term dual use with combustible cigarettes should be strongly discouraged due to excess risk with dual use.

The association between e-cigarette use and asthma among never combustible cigarette smokers: behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) 2016 & 2017.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarette use prevalence has grown rapidly in the US. Despite the popularity of these products, few acute exposure toxicity studies exist, and studies on long-term pulmonary health effects are limited. E-cigarette users who are never combustible cigarette smokers (sole users) constitute a unique group of young adults that may be at increased risk of bronchial hyperreactivity and development of asthma. Given the public health concern about the potential pulmonary health effects of sole e-cigarette use, we aimed to examine the association between e-cigarette use and asthma among never combustible cigarette smokers. METHODS: We pooled 2016 and 2017 data of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a large, cross-sectional telephone survey of adults aged 18 years and older in the U.S. We included 402,822 participants without any history of combustible cigarette smoking (defined as lifetime smoking < 100 cigarettes) and with complete self-reported information on key variables. Current e-cigarette use, further classified as daily or occasional use, was the primary exposure. The main outcome, asthma, was defined as self-reported history of asthma. We assess the relationship of sole e-cigarette use with asthma using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, income, level of education and body mass index. RESULTS: Of 402,822 never combustible cigarette smokers, there were 3103 (0.8%) current e-cigarette users and 34,074 (8.5%) with asthma. The median age group of current e-cigarette users was 18-24 years. Current e-cigarette use was associated with 39% higher odds of self-reported asthma compared to never e-cigarette users (Odds Ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval: 1.15, 1.68). There was a graded increased odds of having asthma with increase of e-cigarette use intensity. The odds ratio of self-reported asthma increased from 1.31 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.62) in occasional users to 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.21, 2.48) in daily e-cigarette users, compared to never e-cigarette users. CONCLUSION: Our findings from a large, nationally representative survey suggest increased odds of asthma among never combustible smoking e-cigarette users. This may have potential public health implications, providing a strong rationale to support future longitudinal studies of pulmonary health in young e-cigarette-using adults.

Prevalence and Distribution of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adults: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016.

Background: Contemporary data on the prevalence of e-cigarette use in the United States are limited. Objective: To report the prevalence and distribution of current e-cigarette use among U.S. adults in 2016. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016. Participants: Adults aged 18 years and older. Measurements: Prevalence of current e-cigarette use by sociodemographic groups, comorbid medical conditions, and states of residence. Results: Of participants with information on e-cigarette use (n = 466 842), 15 240 were current e-cigarette users, representing a prevalence of 4.5%, which corresponds to 10.8 million adult e-cigarette users in the United States. Of the e-cigarette users, 15% were never-cigarette smokers. The prevalence of current e-cigarette use was highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (9.2% [95% CI, 8.6% to 9.8%]), translating to approximately 2.8 million users in this age range. More than half the current e-cigarette users (51.2%) were younger than 35 years. In addition, the age-standardized prevalence of e-cigarette use was high among men; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons; current combustible cigarette smokers; and those with chronic health conditions. The prevalence of e-cigarette use varied widely among states, with estimates ranging from 3.1% (CI, 2.3% to 4.1%) in South Dakota to 7.0% (CI, 6.0% to 8.2%) in Oklahoma. Limitation: Data were self-reported, and no biochemical confirmation of tobacco use was available. Conclusion: E-cigarette use is common, especially in younger adults, LGBT persons, current cigarette smokers, and persons with comorbid conditions. The prevalence of use differs across states. These contemporary estimates may inform researchers, health care policymakers, and tobacco regulators about demographic and geographic distributions of e-cigarette use. Primary Funding Source: American Heart Association Tobacco Regulation and Addiction Center, which is funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Burden and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infections in Infants in Rural Nepal.

Background: Knowledge of risk factors for symptomatic human coronavirus (HCoV) infections in children in community settings is limited. We estimated the disease burden and impact of birth-related, maternal, household, and seasonal factors on HCoV infections among children from birth to 6 months old in rural Nepal. Methods: Prospective, active, weekly surveillance for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) was conducted in infants over a period of 3 years during 2 consecutive, population-based randomized trials of maternal influenza immunization. Midnasal swabs were collected for acute respiratory symptoms and tested for HCoV and other viruses by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Association between HCoV incidence and potential risk factors was modeled using Poisson regression. Results: Overall, 282 of 3505 (8%) infants experienced an HCoV ARI within the first 6 months of life. HCoV incidence overall was 255.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 227.3-286.5) per 1000 person-years, and was more than twice as high among nonneonates than among neonates (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.52-4.21). HCoV ARI incidence was also positively associated with the number of children <5 years of age per room in a household (IRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28). Of the 296 HCoV infections detected, 46% were coinfections with other respiratory viruses. While HCoVs were detected throughout the study period, seasonal variation was also observed, with incidence peaking in 2 winters (December-February) and 1 autumn (September-November). Conclusions: HCoV is associated with a substantial proportion of illnesses among young infants in rural Nepal. There is an increased risk of HCoV infection beyond the first month of life.

Pod-based e-cigarette use among US college-aged adults: A survey on the perception of health effects, sociodemographic correlates, and interplay with other tobacco products.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette use among youth and young adults remains of public health concern. Pod-based e-cigarettes, including JUUL, significantly changed the e-cigarette landscape in the US. Using an online survey, we explored the socio-behavioral correlates, predisposing factors, and addictive behaviors, among young adult pod-mod users within a University in Maryland, USA. METHODS: In total, 112 eligible college students aged 18-24 years, recruited from a University in Maryland, who reported using pod-mods were included in this study. Participants were categorized into current/non-current users based on past-30-day use. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants' responses. RESULTS: The mean age of the survey participants was 20.5 ± 1.2 years, 56.3% were female, 48.2% White, and 40.2% reported past-30-day (current) use of pod-mods. The mean age of first experimentation with pod-mods was 17.8 ± 1.4 years, while the mean age of regular use was 18.5 ± 1.4 years, with the majority (67.9%) citing social influence as the reason for initiation. Of the current users, 62.2% owned their own devices, and 82.2% predominantly used JUUL and menthol flavor (37.8%). A significant proportion of current users (73.3%) reported buying pods in person, 45.5% of whom were aged <21 years. Among all participants, 67% had had a past serious quit attempt. Among them, 89.3% neither used nicotine replacement therapy nor prescription medications. Finally, current use (adjusted odds ratio, AOR=4.52; 95% CI: 1.76-11.64), JUUL use (AOR=2.56; 95% CI: 1.08-6.03), and menthol flavor (AOR=6.52; 95% CI: 1.38-30.89) were associated with reduced nicotine autonomy, a measure of addiction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide specific data to inform the development of public health interventions targeted at college youth, including the need for more robust cessation support for pod-mod users.

Examining the association of habitual e-cigarette use with inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in young adults: The VAPORS-Endothelial function study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has been shown to have potentially deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system. However, the cardiovascular effects of habitual e-cigarette use have not been fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to assess the association of habitual e-cigarette use with endothelial dysfunction and inflammation - subclinical markers known to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 46 participants (23 exclusive e-cigarette users; 23 non-users) enrolled in the VAPORS-Endothelial function study. E-cigarette users had used e-cigarettes for ≥6 consecutive months. Non-users had used e-cigarettes <5 times and had a negative urine cotinine test (<30 ng/mL). Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and reactive hyperemia index (RHI) were used to assess endothelial dysfunction, and we assayed high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, fibrinogen, p-selectin, and myeloperoxidase as serum measures of inflammation. We used multivariable linear regression to assess the association of e-cigarette use with the markers of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation. RESULTS: Of the 46 participants with mean age of 24.3 ± 4.0 years, the majority were males (78%), non-Hispanic (89%), and White (59%). Among non-users, 6 had cotinine levels <10 ng/mL while 17 had levels 10-30 ng/mL. Conversely, among e-cigarette users, the majority (14 of 23) had cotinine ≥500 ng/mL. At baseline, the systolic blood pressure was higher among e-cigarette users than non-users (p=0.011). The mean FMD was slightly lower among e-cigarette users (6.32%) compared to non-users (6.53%). However, in the adjusted analysis, current e-cigarette users did not differ significantly from non-users in their mean FMD (Coefficient=2.05; 95% CI: -2.52-6.63) or RHI (Coefficient= -0.20; 95% CI: -0.88-0.49). Similarly, the levels of inflammatory markers were generally low and did not differ between e-cigarette users and non-users. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that e-cigarette use may not be significantly associated with endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation in relatively young and healthy individuals. Longer term studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings.

The inverse association of state cannabis vaping prevalence with the e-cigarette or vaping product-use associated lung injury.

The e-cigarette or vaping product-use-associated lung injury (EVALI) epidemic was primarily associated with the use of e-cigarettes containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)- the principal psychoactive substance in cannabis, and vitamin-E-acetate- an additive sometimes used in informally sourced THC-containing e-liquids. EVALI case burden varied across states, but it is unclear whether this was associated with state-level cannabis vaping prevalence. We, therefore, used linear regression models to assess the cross-sectional association between state-level cannabis vaping prevalence (obtained from the 2019 behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) and EVALI case burden (obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) adjusted for state cannabis policies. Cannabis vaping prevalence ranged from 1.14%(95%CI, 0.61%-2.12%) in Wyoming to 3.11%(95%CI, 2.16%-4.44%) in New Hampshire. EVALI cases per million population ranged from 1.90(0.38-3.42) in Oklahoma to 59.10(19.70-96.53) in North Dakota. There was no significant positive association but an inverse association between state cannabis vaping prevalence and EVALI case burden (Coefficient, -18.6; 95%CI, -37.5-0.4; p-value, 0.05). Thus, state-level cannabis vaping prevalence was not positively associated with EVALI prevalence, suggesting that there may not be a simple direct link between state cannabis vaping prevalence and EVALI cases, but rather the relationship is likely more nuanced and possibly reflective of access to informal sources of THC-containing e-cigarettes.

Lipoprotein(a) and Subclinical Vascular and Valvular Calcification on Cardiac Computed Tomography: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

Background Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a potent causal risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality. However, its relationship with subclinical atherosclerosis, as defined by arterial calcification, remains unclear. This study uses the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study) to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) in middle age and measures of vascular and valvular calcification in older age. Methods and Results Lp(a) was measured at ARIC visit 4 (1996-1998), and coronary artery calcium (CAC), together with extracoronary calcification (including aortic valve calcium, aortic valve ring calcium, mitral valve calcification, and thoracic aortic calcification), was measured at visit 7 (2018-2019). Lp(a) was defined as elevated if >50 mg/dL and CAC/extracoronary calcification were defined as elevated if >100. Logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and CAC/extracoronary calcification, with further stratification by race. The mean age of participants at visit 4 was 59.2 (SD 4.3) years, with 62.2% women. In multivariable adjusted analyses, elevated Lp(a) was associated with higher odds of elevated aortic valve calcium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47), CAC (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.81), aortic valve ring calcium (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73), mitral valve calcification (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.78), and thoracic aortic calcification (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.05-1.77). Similar results were obtained when Lp(a) and CAC/extracoronary calcification were examined on continuous logarithmic scales. There was no significant difference in the association between Lp(a) and each measure of calcification by race or sex. Conclusions Elevated Lp(a) at middle age is significantly associated with vascular and valvular calcification in older age, represented by elevated CAC, aortic valve calcium, aortic valve ring calcium, mitral valve calcification, thoracic aortic calcification. Our findings encourage assessing Lp(a) levels in individuals with increased cardiovascular disease risk, with subsequent comprehensive vascular and valvular assessment where elevated.

Coronary Artery Calcium for Risk Stratification of Sudden Cardiac Death: The Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a marker of plaque burden. Whether CAC improves risk stratification for incident sudden cardiac death (SCD) beyond atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors is unknown. OBJECTIVES: SCD is a common initial manifestation of coronary heart disease (CHD); however, SCD risk prediction remains elusive. METHODS: The authors studied 66,636 primary prevention patients from the CAC Consortium. Multivariable competing risks regression and C-statistics were used to assess the association between CAC and SCD, adjusting for demographics and traditional risk factors. RESULTS: The mean age was 54.4 years, 33% were women, 11% were of non-White ethnicity, and 55% had CAC >0. A total of 211 SCD events (0.3%) were observed during a median follow-up of 10.6 years, 91% occurring among those with baseline CAC >0. Compared with CAC = 0, there was a stepwise higher risk (P trend < 0.001) in SCD for CAC 100 to 399 (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6-5.0), CAC 400 to 999 (SHR: 4.0; 95% CI: 2.2-7.3), and CAC >1,000 (SHR: 4.9; 95% CI: 2.6-9.9). CAC provided incremental improvements in the C-statistic for the prediction of SCD among individuals with a 10-year risk <7.5% (ΔC-statistic = +0.046; P = 0.02) and 7.5% to 20% (ΔC-statistic = +0.069; P = 0.003), which were larger when compared with persons with a 10-year risk >20% (ΔC-statistic = +0.01; P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Higher CAC burden strongly associates with incident SCD beyond traditional risk factors, particularly among primary prevention patients with low-intermediate risk. SCD risk stratification can be useful in the early stages of CHD through the measurement of CAC, identifying patients most likely to benefit from further downstream testing.

An Update on Coronary Artery Calcium Interpretation at Chest and Cardiac CT.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a marker of overall coronary atherosclerotic burden in an individual. As such, it is an important tool in cardiovascular risk stratification and preventive treatment of asymptomatic patients with unclear cardiovascular disease risk. Several guidelines have recommended the use of CAC testing in shared decision making between the clinician and patient. With recent updates in clinical management guidelines and broad recommendations for CAC, there is a need for concise updated information on CAC interpretation on traditional electrocardiographically gated scans and nongated thoracic scans. Important points to report when interpreting CAC scans include: the absolute Agatston score and the age, sex, and race-specific CAC percentile; general recommendations on time-to-rescan for individuals with a CAC score of 0; the number of vessels with CAC; the presence of CAC in the left main coronary artery; and specific highlighting of individuals with very high CAC scores of greater than 1000. When risk factor information is available, the 10-year coronary heart disease risk can also be easily assessed using the free online Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis risk score calculator. Recent improvements in standardizing the reporting of CAC findings across gated and nongated studies, such as the CAC Data and Reporting System, show promise for improving the widespread clinical value of CAC in clinical practice. © RSNA, 2021.

Implications of the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Primary Prevention Guidelines and potential value of the coronary artery calcium score among South Asians in the US: The Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: South Asian (SA) ethnicity is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the implications of considering SA ethnicity as a "risk-enhancing factor" per recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines are not fully understood. METHODS: We used data from the Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) study, a community-based cohort study of individuals of SA ancestry living in the US. The Pooled Cohort Equations were used to estimate 10-year ASCVD risk. Metabolic risk factors and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1114 MASALA participants included (median age 56 years, 48% women), 28% were already using a statin at baseline, 25% had prevalent diabetes, and 59% qualified for 10-year ASCVD risk assessment for statin allocation purposes. The prevalence of low, borderline, intermediate, and high estimated ASCVD risk was 65%, 11%, 20% and 5%, respectively. Among participants at intermediate risk, 30% had CAC = 0 and 37% had CAC>100, while among participants at borderline risk, 54% had CAC = 0 and 13% had CAC>100. Systematic consideration of intermediate and, particularly, of borderline risk individuals as statin candidates would enrich the statin-consideration group with CAC = 0 participants up to 35%. Prediabetes and abdominal obesity were highly prevalent across all estimated risk strata, including among those with CAC = 0. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that systematic consideration of borderline risk SAs as statin candidates might result in considerable overtreatment, and further risk assessment with CAC may help better personalize statin allocation in these individuals. Early, aggressive lifestyle interventions aimed at reducing the risk of incident diabetes should be strongly recommended in US SAs, particularly among those considered candidates for statin therapy for primary prevention. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the favorable prognosis of CAC = 0 in SAs.

Aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention among adults in the United States: Trends, prevalence, and participant characteristics associated with use.

OBJECTIVE: : Aspirin has been widely utilized over several decades for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention among adults in the United States. We examined trends in aspirin use among adults aged ≥40 years from 1998 to 2019 and assessed factors associated with its use for primary and secondary ASCVD prevention. METHODS: : Using 1998-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, we obtained weighted prevalence of aspirin use among adults aged ≥40 years for each year and examined trends in use over this period. Using multivariable logistic regression and utilizing data from 54,388 respondents aged ≥40 years in the 2019 data, we assessed factors associated with aspirin use for secondary prevention and for primary prevention stratified by the number of traditional ASCVD risk factors reported (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, high cholesterol, overweight/obesity, and cigarette smoking). RESULTS: : Aspirin use prevalence increased from 29.0%(95%CI, 27.9%-30.2%) in 1998 to 37.5%(36.9%-38.0%) in 2009. However, use has slightly declined over the last decade: 35.6%(34.6%-36.6%) in 2011 to 33.5%(32.5%-34.6%) in 2019. In 2019, among respondents without cardiovascular disease (CVD), 27.5%(26.4%-28.6%) reported primary prevention aspirin use while 69.7%(67.0%-72.2%) of respondents with CVD reported secondary prevention aspirin use. Of concern, 45.6%(43.5%-47.7%) of adults aged ≥70 years without CVD reported primary prevention aspirin use. Additionally, among individuals without any self-reported traditional ASCVD risk factor, males (adjusted odds ratio(aOR):1.60, 95%CI:1.12-2.27), persons aged ≥70 years (aOR:3.22, 95%CI:2.27-4.55), and individuals with healthcare coverage (aOR:2.28, 95%CI:1.17-4.44) had higher odds of primary prevention aspirin use compared to females, persons aged 40-69 years, and individuals without healthcare coverage, respectively. Females were less likely than males to report secondary prevention aspirin use (aOR:0.64, 95%CI:0.50-0.82). CONCLUSION: : Aspirin use has slightly declined over the last decade. A significant proportion of adults aged ≥70 years reported primary prevention aspirin use in 2019. Since current guidelines do not recommend primary prevention aspirin use among adults aged ≥70 years, such use should be discouraged.

Thoracic Aortic Calcium for the Prediction of Stroke Mortality (from the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium).

Thoracic aortic calcium(TAC) is an important marker of extracoronary atherosclerosis with established predictive value for all-cause mortality. We sought to explore the predictive value of TAC for stroke mortality, independent of the more established coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. The CAC Consortium is a retrospectively assembled database of 66,636 patients aged ≥18 years with no previous history of cardiovascular disease, baseline CAC scans for risk stratification, and follow-up for 12 ± 4 years. CAC scans capture the adjacent thoracic aorta, enabling assessment of TAC from the same images. TAC was available in 41,066 (62%), and was primarily analyzed as present or not present. To account for competing risks for nonstroke death, we utilized multivariable-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk regression models adjusted for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and CAC score. The mean age of participants was 53.8 ± 10.3 years, with 34.4% female. There were 110 stroke deaths during follow-up. The unadjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) for stroke mortality in those who had TAC present compared with those who did not was 8.80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.97, 12.98). After adjusting for traditional risk factors and CAC score, the SHR was 2.21 (95% CI:1.39,3.49). In sex-stratified analyses, the fully adjusted SHR for females was 3.42 (95% CI: 1.74, 6.73) while for males it was 1.55 (95% CI: 0.83, 2.90). TAC was associated with stroke mortality independent of CAC and traditional risk factors, more so in women. The presence of TAC appears to be an independent risk marker for stroke mortality.

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: New Insights into Clinical Interpretation-Lessons from the CAC Consortium.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a highly specific marker for coronary atherosclerosis. The CAC Consortium, a multicenter, retrospective, real-world cohort study, was established to investigate the association between CAC and long-term, cause-specific mortality. This review summarizes findings from CAC Consortium studies published between 2016 and 2020, aiming to demystify CAC as a clinical decision-guiding tool and push the limits of who might benefit from CAC in clinical practice. CAC has been shown to effectively stratify cardiovascular risk across ethnicities irrespective of age, sex, and risk factor burden. In comparison to other widely used risk scores, CAC appears to be most consistent in its ability to add to cardiovascular disease (CVD) event prediction. Beyond risk stratification, CAC has been shown to identify high-risk patient subgroups. While currently recommended only for patients at borderline or intermediate risk by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (10-year atherosclerotic CVD event risk, 5% to < 20%), CAC scoring may also provide value in select young patients aged 30-49 years and in low-risk patients with a family history. While new studies emphasize that patients with a CAC greater than or equal to 1000 be considered a distinct patient group, a CAC of 0 has additionally emerged to be a reliable negative risk factor, identifying patients at low risk of both CVD and non-CVD mortality. © RSNA, 2020.