Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990-2019: Update From the GBD 2019 Study.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), principally ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, are the leading cause of global mortality and a major contributor to disability. This paper reviews the magnitude of total CVD burden, including 13 underlying causes of cardiovascular death and 9 related risk factors, using estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019. GBD, an ongoing multinational collaboration to provide comparable and consistent estimates of population health over time, used all available population-level data sources on incidence, prevalence, case fatality, mortality, and health risks to produce estimates for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Prevalent cases of total CVD nearly doubled from 271 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 257 to 285 million) in 1990 to 523 million (95% UI: 497 to 550 million) in 2019, and the number of CVD deaths steadily increased from 12.1 million (95% UI:11.4 to 12.6 million) in 1990, reaching 18.6 million (95% UI: 17.1 to 19.7 million) in 2019. The global trends for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years of life lost also increased significantly, and years lived with disability doubled from 17.7 million (95% UI: 12.9 to 22.5 million) to 34.4 million (95% UI:24.9 to 43.6 million) over that period. The total number of DALYs due to IHD has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 182 million (95% UI: 170 to 194 million) DALYs, 9.14 million (95% UI: 8.40 to 9.74 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 197 million (95% UI: 178 to 220 million) prevalent cases of IHD in 2019. The total number of DALYs due to stroke has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 143 million (95% UI: 133 to 153 million) DALYs, 6.55 million (95% UI: 6.00 to 7.02 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 101 million (95% UI: 93.2 to 111 million) prevalent cases of stroke in 2019. Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of disease burden in the world. CVD burden continues its decades-long rise for almost all countries outside high-income countries, and alarmingly, the age-standardized rate of CVD has begun to rise in some locations where it was previously declining in high-income countries. There is an urgent need to focus on implementing existing cost-effective policies and interventions if the world is to meet the targets for Sustainable Development Goal 3 and achieve a 30% reduction in premature mortality due to noncommunicable diseases.

The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance: Working Toward a New Care Model for the Metabolic Syndrome.

The Cardiometabolic Think Tank was convened on June 20, 2014, in Washington, DC, as a "call to action" activity focused on defining new patient care models and approaches to address contemporary issues of cardiometabolic risk and disease. Individual experts representing >20 professional organizations participated in this roundtable discussion. The Think Tank consensus was that the metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a complex pathophysiological state comprised of a cluster of clinically measured and typically unmeasured risk factors, is progressive in its course, and is associated with serious and extensive comorbidity, but tends to be clinically under-recognized. The ideal patient care model for MetS must accurately identify those at risk before MetS develops and must recognize subtypes and stages of MetS to more effectively direct prevention and therapies. This new MetS care model introduces both affirmed and emerging concepts that will require consensus development, validation, and optimization in the future.

An assessment by the Statin Diabetes Safety Task Force: 2014 update.

Statin therapy reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 25% to 30% in primary as well as secondary prevention patients. Thus, statins are the pharmacologic therapy of choice for the management of high blood cholesterol levels. Prompted by examination of clinical trial data suggesting a modest, but statistically significant, increase in the incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus with statin use, the US Food and Drug Administration in 2012 added a statement to the labels of statin medications indicating that increases in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) and fasting glucose levels have been reported with statin use. This labeling change has raised questions among clinicians regarding the relative benefits and risks of statin use, both among patients with diabetes mellitus and among those with diabetes risk factors. This 2014 report from the Diabetes Subpanel of the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Statin Safety reviews the published evidence relating statin use to the hazard for diabetes mellitus or worsening glycemia, examines potential mechanisms that may mediate the relationship between statin use and diabetes mellitus risk, and suggests future research efforts. Given the well-established benefits of statin therapy in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events among those with indications for treatment, no changes to clinical practice are recommended other than the measurement of HbA1C or fasting glucose in those deemed to also be at elevated diabetes risk after initiating statin therapy, and potentially before initiation in selected patients considered to be at elevated risk of developing diabetes. The panel advocates following recommendations from the American Diabetes Association, or other relevant guidelines if outside the United States, for screening and diagnosis as well as lifestyle modification for prevention or delay of diabetes mellitus in those with prediabetes or other risk factors.

An assessment by the Statin Intolerance Panel: 2014 update.

This article from the National Lipid Association Statin Intolerance Panel provides a framework for understanding statin intolerance and makes general recommendations for health professionals. For specific guidance on adverse events related to muscle, liver, cognition, and glucose metabolism, one should refer to the other reports of the Statin Safety Task Force for those topics. Although statin adverse effects rarely lead to permanent sequelae, symptomatic intolerance frequently hinders cardiovascular risk reduction by statins. We emphasize here the advisory role of the clinician helping each patient to make personal decisions on statin tolerability. We identify a pressing need for further research on statin intolerance and make suggestions for research design.

Stanol esters as a component of maximal dietary therapy in the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III report.

Use of plant stanols/sterols in forms that are sufficiently bioavailable for therapeutic effect should be a key element of maximal dietary therapy. This principle was recognized by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) and has been amply confirmed by experimental studies in humans. Since the introduction of statins, dietary therapy for control of elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels has received less attention. The time has come, however, to reassert the importance of maximal dietary therapy as a cost-effective means for treatment of elevated LDL concentrations and for lifetime prevention of coronary heart disease.

Should C-reactive protein be added to metabolic syndrome and to assessment of global cardiovascular risk?

Of novel risk factors for cardiovascular disease currently under investigation, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is the most promising. To date, more than 20 prospective epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that hsCRP independently predicts vascular risk, 6 cohort studies have confirmed that hsCRP evaluation adds prognostic information beyond that available from the Framingham Risk Score, and 8 cohort studies have demonstrated additive prognostic value at all levels of metabolic syndrome or in the prediction of type 2 diabetes. In contrast to several other biomarkers that also reflect biological aspects of inflammation, hypofibrinolysis, and insulin resistance, hsCRP measurement is inexpensive, standardized, widely available, and has a decade-to-decade variation similar to that of cholesterol. Given the consistency of prognostic data for hsCRP and the practicality of its use in outpatient clinical settings, we believe the time has come for a careful consideration of adding hsCRP as a clinical criterion for metabolic syndrome and for the creation of an hsCRP-modified coronary risk score useful for global risk prediction in both men and women. Toward this end, we believe experts in the fields of epidemiology, prevention, vascular biology, and clinical cardiology should be convened to begin discussing the merits of this proposal.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part II.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document will focus on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part I.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

Atherosclerosis imaging for risk assessment and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Imaging for atherosclerotic disease as a modality of risk assessment to guide clinical intervention for primary prevention is becoming more widely acceptable. The greatest information about risk can be obtained by combining measures of atherosclerotic plaque burden with risk factors. Both contain useful and independent information. An unresolved issue is how best to combine risk factors and atherosclerosis imaging to yield a quantitative estimate of risk. Several alternative approaches are outlined in this article. If atherosclerosis imaging is to be used as an element in risk assessment, it must be done by physicians who are well versed in the concepts of global risk assessment and who are able to adjust preventive testing and therapies in ways to be cost-effective.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of once-daily niacin for the treatment of dyslipidemia associated with type 2 diabetes: results of the assessment of diabetes control and evaluation of the efficacy of niaspan trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic dyslipidemia is characterized by high triglyceride levels; low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles; and high free fatty acid levels. Niacin reduces concentrations of triglyceride-rich and small low-density lipoprotein particles while increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. It also lowers levels of free fatty acids and lipoprotein(a). However, the use of niacin in patients with diabetes has been discouraged because high doses can worsen glycemic control. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily extended-release (ER) niacin in patients with diabetic dyslipidemia. METHODS: During a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 148 patients were randomized to placebo (n = 49) or 1000 (n = 45) or 1500 mg/d (n = 52) of ER niacin. Sixty-nine patients (47%) were also receiving concomitant therapy with statins. RESULTS: Dose-dependent increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (+19% to +24% [P<.05] vs placebo for both niacin dosages) and reductions in triglyceride levels (-13% to -28% [P<.05] vs placebo for the 1500-mg ER niacin) were observed. Baseline and week 16 values for glycosylated hemoglobin levels were 7.13% and 7.11%, respectively, in the placebo group; 7.28% and 7.35%, respectively, in the 1000-mg ER niacin group (P=.16 vs placebo); and 7.2% and 7.5%, respectively, in the 1500-mg ER niacin group (P=.048 vs placebo). Four patients discontinued participation because of inadequate glucose control. Rates of adverse event rates other than flushing were similar for the niacin and placebo groups. Four patients discontinued participation owing to flushing (including 1 receiving placebo). No hepatotoxic effects or myopathy were observed. CONCLUSION: Low doses of ER niacin (1000 or 1500 mg/d) are a treatment option for dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.