Personalized cardiovascular risk assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis patients using circulating molecular profiles and their modulation by TNFi, IL6Ri, and JAKinibs.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to: 1) analyze the inflammatory profile of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients, identifying clinical phenotypes associated with cardiovascular (CV) risk; 2) evaluate biologic and targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b-DMARDs and ts-DMARDs': TNFi, IL6Ri, JAKinibs) effects; and 3) characterize molecular mechanisms in immune-cell activation and endothelial dysfunction. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 387 RA patients and 45 healthy donors were recruited, forming three cohorts: i) 208 RA patients with established disease but without previous CV events; ii) RA-CVD: 96 RA patients with CV events, and iii) 83 RA patients treated with b-DMARDs/ts-DMARDs for 6 months. Serum inflammatory profiles (cytokines/chemokines/growth factors) and NETosis/oxidative stress-linked biomolecules were evaluated. Mechanistic in vitro studies were performed on monocytes, neutrophils and endothelial cells (EC). RESULTS: In the first RA-cohort, unsupervised clustering unveiled three distinct groups: cluster 3 (C3) displayed the highest inflammatory profile, significant CV-risk score, and greater atheroma plaques prevalence. In contrast, cluster 1 (C1) exhibited the lowest inflammatory profile and CV risk score, while cluster 2 (C2) displayed an intermediate phenotype. Notably, 2nd cohort RA-CVD patients mirrored C3's inflammation. Treatment with b-DMARDs or ts-DMARDs effectively reduced disease-activity scores (DAS28) and restored normal biomolecules levels, controlling CV risk. In vitro, serum from C3-RA or RA-CVD patients increased neutrophils activity and CV-related protein levels in cultured monocytes and EC, which were partially prevented by pre-incubation with TNFi, IL6Ri, and JAKinibs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, analyzing circulating molecular profiles in RA patients holds potential for personalized clinical management, addressing CV risk and assisting healthcare professionals in tailoring treatment, ultimately improving outcomes.

Patterns of Comorbidities and Prescribing and Dispensing of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Among Patients with Osteoarthritis in the USA: Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of chronic pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are analgesics commonly used for musculoskeletal pain; however, NSAIDs can increase the risk of certain adverse events, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, edema, heart failure, and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize existing comorbidities among patients with OA. For patients with OA with and without a coexisting medical condition of interest (CMCOI), we estimated the prevalence of prescribing and dispensing NSAIDs pre-OA and post-OA diagnosis. METHODS: Data from three large administrative claims databases were used to construct an OA retrospective cohort. Databases leveraged were IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Database (MDCR), IBM MarketScan Commercial Database (CCAE), and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (Optum CDM). The OA study population was defined to be those patients who had an OA diagnosis from an inpatient or outpatient visit with at least 365 days of prior observation time in the database during January 2000 through May 2021. Asthma, cardiovascular disorders, renal impairment, and gastrointestinal bleeding risks were the CMCOI of interest. Patients with OA were then classified as having or not having evidence of a CMCOI. For both groups, NSAID dispensing patterns pre-OA and post-OA diagnosis were identified. Descriptive analysis was performed within the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics framework. RESULTS: In each database, the proportion of the OA population with at least one CMCOI was nearly 50% or more (48.0% CCAE; 74.4% MDCR; 68.6% Optum CDM). Cardiovascular disease was the most commonly observed CMCOI in each database, and in two databases, nearly one in four patients with OA had two or more CMCOI (23.2% MDCR; 22.6% Optum CDM). Among the OA population with CMCOI, NSAID utilization post-OA diagnosis ranged from 33.0 to 46.2%. Following diagnosis of OA, an increase in the prescribing and dispensing of NSAIDs was observed in all databases, regardless of patient CMCOI presence. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence of the pattern of prescribing and dispensing of NSAIDs among patients with OA with and without CMCOI, which indicates that at least half of patients with OA in the USA have a coexisting condition. These conditions may increase the risk of side effects commonly associated with NSAIDs. Yet, at least 32% of these patients were prescribed and dispensed NSAIDs. These data support the importance of shared decision making between healthcare professionals and patients when considering NSAIDs for the treatment of OA in patients with NSAID-relevant coexisting medical conditions.

Out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for adults with cardiovascular risk factors under Amazon's direct-to-consumer pharmacy service.

BACKGROUND: US adults often overpay for generic prescription medications, which can lead to medication nonadherence that negatively impacts cardiovascular outcomes. As a result, new direct-to-consumer online medication services are growing in popularity nationwide. Amazon recently launched a $5/month direct-to-consumer medication subscription service (Amazon RxPass), but it is unclear how many US adults could save on out-of-pocket drug costs by using this new service. OBJECTIVES: To estimate out-of-pocket savings on generic prescription medications achievable through Amazon's new direct-to-consumer subscription medication service for adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or conditions. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of adults 18-64 years in the 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Of the 25,280,517 (SE ± 934,809) adults aged 18-64 years with cardiovascular risk factors or conditions who were prescribed at least 1 medication available in the Amazon RxPass formulary, only 6.4% (1,624,587 [SE ± 68,571]) would achieve savings. Among those achieving savings, the estimated average out-of-pocket savings would be $140 (SE ± $15.8) per person per year, amounting to a total savings of $228,093,570 (SE ± $26,117,241). In multivariable regression models, lack of insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95%CI 1.9-6.5) and being prescribed a greater number of RxPass-eligible medications (2-3 medications versus 1 medication: OR 5.6, 95%CI 3.0-10.3; 4+ medications: OR 21.8, 95%CI 10.7-44.3) were each associated with a higher likelihood of achieving out-of-pocket savings from RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the pricing structure of Amazon's direct-to-consumer medication service are needed to expand out-of-pocket savings on generic medications to a larger segment of the working-age adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or diseases.

The implications of competing risks and direct treatment disutility in cardiovascular disease and osteoporotic fracture: risk prediction and cost effectiveness analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines commonly recommend preventative treatments for people above a risk threshold. Therefore, decision-makers must have faith in risk prediction tools and model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for people at different levels of risk. Two problems that arise are inadequate handling of competing risks of death and failing to account for direct treatment disutility (i.e. the hassle of taking treatments). We explored these issues using two case studies: primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using statins and osteoporotic fracture using bisphosphonates. Objectives: Externally validate three risk prediction tools [QRISK®3, QRISK®-Lifetime, QFracture-2012 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK)]; derive and internally validate new risk prediction tools for cardiovascular disease [competing mortality risk model with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CRISK-CCI)] and fracture (CFracture), accounting for competing-cause death; quantify direct treatment disutility for statins and bisphosphonates; and examine the effect of competing risks and direct treatment disutility on the cost-effectiveness of preventative treatments. Design, participants, main outcome measures, data sources: Discrimination and calibration of risk prediction models (Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants: aged 25-84 years for cardiovascular disease and aged 30-99 years for fractures); direct treatment disutility was elicited in online stated-preference surveys (people with/people without experience of statins/bisphosphonates); costs and quality-adjusted life-years were determined from decision-analytic modelling (updated models used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making). Results: CRISK-CCI has excellent discrimination, similar to that of QRISK3 (Harrell's c = 0.864 vs. 0.865, respectively, for women; and 0.819 vs. 0.834, respectively, for men). CRISK-CCI has systematically better calibration, although both models overpredict in high-risk subgroups. People recommended for treatment (10-year risk of ≥ 10%) are younger when using QRISK-Lifetime than when using QRISK3, and have fewer observed events in a 10-year follow-up (4.0% vs. 11.9%, respectively, for women; and 4.3% vs. 10.8%, respectively, for men). QFracture-2012 underpredicts fractures, owing to under-ascertainment of events in its derivation. However, there is major overprediction among people aged 85-99 years and/or with multiple long-term conditions. CFracture is better calibrated, although it also overpredicts among older people. In a time trade-off exercise (n = 879), statins exhibited direct treatment disutility of 0.034; for bisphosphonates, it was greater, at 0.067. Inconvenience also influenced preferences in best-worst scaling (n = 631). Updated cost-effectiveness analysis generates more quality-adjusted life-years among people with below-average cardiovascular risk and fewer among people with above-average risk. If people experience disutility when taking statins, the cardiovascular risk threshold at which benefits outweigh harms rises with age (≥ 8% 10-year risk at 40 years of age; ≥ 38% 10-year risk at 80 years of age). Assuming that everyone experiences population-average direct treatment disutility with oral bisphosphonates, treatment is net harmful at all levels of risk. Limitations: Treating data as missing at random is a strong assumption in risk prediction model derivation. Disentangling the effect of statins from secular trends in cardiovascular disease in the previous two decades is challenging. Validating lifetime risk prediction is impossible without using very historical data. Respondents to our stated-preference survey may not be representative of the population. There is no consensus on which direct treatment disutilities should be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. Not all the inputs to the cost-effectiveness models could be updated. Conclusions: Ignoring competing mortality in risk prediction overestimates the risk of cardiovascular events and fracture, especially among older people and those with multimorbidity. Adjustment for competing risk does not meaningfully alter cost-effectiveness of these preventative interventions, but direct treatment disutility is measurable and has the potential to alter the balance of benefits and harms. We argue that this is best addressed in individual-level shared decision-making. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021249959. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/12/22) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Before offering a medicine to prevent disease, prescribers must expect it to do more good than harm. This balance depends on how likely it is that the person will develop the disease we want to prevent. But people might first die for other reasons. We call this a 'competing risk'. In most cases, the mathematical tools we use to estimate the chance of developing a disease do not account for competing risks. Another problem is that, when weighing up the benefits and harms of medicines, we ignore the hassle they cause patients, even when they do not cause side effects. We used two examples: statins to prevent heart disease and bisphosphonates to prevent fractures. First, we assessed if existing tools get predictions wrong by not accounting for competing risks. We found that they exaggerate the chance of heart attacks and strokes. However, the exaggeration is greatest among people who would clearly benefit from preventative treatment. So it may not change treatment decisions much. The fracture prediction tool we studied was very inaccurate, exaggerating risk among older people, but underestimating risk among younger people. We made a new fracture risk prediction tool. It gave better predictions, but it was still inaccurate for people aged > 85 years and those with several health problems. Next, we asked people questions designed to put a number on the hassle that statins and bisphosphonates cause. Most people thought that taking either is inconvenient, but the hassle factor for bisphosphonates is bigger. Finally, we updated the mathematical models that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence used when recommending statins and bisphosphonates. We worked out if competing risks and the hassle of taking medicines make a difference to results. Statins remain a good idea for almost everyone, unless they really hate the idea of taking them. But bisphosphonates would do more harm than good for anyone who agrees with the hassle factor we found.

General practice pharmacist-led antipsychotic physical health monitoring: a prospective intervention scoping study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental health illness die prematurely, often due to preventable cardiometabolic disease, which can be exacerbated by antipsychotic medicines that are effective for treating mental illness. Literature demonstrates that physical health monitoring, as recommended in guidelines, for people receiving antipsychotics is substandard. Therefore, we aimed to scope the potential of a general practice clinical pharmacist (GPCP)-led multidisciplinary intervention optimising adherence to cardiometabolic monitoring guidelines and delivering polypharmacy reviews. METHOD: Prospective intervention scoping study in three urban general practices; one usual care, two intervention. Patients 18-65 years old prescribed oral antipsychotics were identified from records, and invited for cardiometabolic monitoring and GPCP medication review, from January to December 2022. Interventions and onward referrals were recorded and collated. Anonymised pre- and post-review data were analysed, and actions were graded for clinical importance. RESULTS: In total 1.5% (210/14,159) of patients aged 18-65 years met inclusion criteria; usual care practice (n = 58); and intervention practices (n = 152). From baseline, the usual care practice achieved an absolute 7% increase in the cardiometabolic monitoring care bundle (glucose/glycosylated haemoglobin, lipids, blood pressure plus body mass index) versus 19-58% in the intervention practices. Two-thirds (92/152) of patients participated in medication reviews, requiring pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological clinical actions. The majority of actions were graded as moderate importance. Seven percentage of patients were identified as new pre-diabetic/diabetic and 6% were at high risk of cardiovascular disease requiring statin initiation. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led multidisciplinary general practice-based approach may be effective at optimising cardiometabolic monitoring; identifying and treating diabetic and cardiovascular risk factors.

People with severe mental illness die 15­20 years earlier than the general population, many due to preventable and/or treatable heart disease. While antipsychotic medicines are effective for treating mental illness they are associated with potential adverse effects; weight gain, increased blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol. Therefore, guidelines advise regular physical health checks for people with severe mental illness, and those receiving antipsychotics, to reduce avoidable harms and optimise preventative treatments. However, routine monitoring is substandard. This study aimed to explore the potential of a general practice pharmacist-led intervention to optimise physical health monitoring and medication reviews, from January to December 2022. Three practices participated; one providing usual care, and two the pharmacist intervention. The usual care practice achieved a 7% increase in all monitoring parameters (weight, blood pressure, blood sugars plus cholesterol), whereas the pharmacist-led practices achieved a 19­58% increase in monitoring. Two in three patients (92/152) participated in a medication review with the pharmacists that addressed a range of mental and physical health issues. Of the 152 patients in the intervention practices 6% were identified as being at high risk of heart disease requiring preventative medicines, and 7% were identified as having new diabetes and/or pre-diabetes.

[Economic evaluation of a fixed-dose combination (acetylsalicylic acid and rosuvastatin) in the cardiovascular context]. / Valutazione farmacoeconomica di una combinazione a dose fissa (acido acetilsalicilico e rosuvastatina) in ambito cardiovascolare.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases pose a significant challenge to the society and healthcare systems, with serious implications in terms of mortality and healthcare expenditure. The treatment of cardiovascular diseases, based on acetylsalicylic acid combined with statins in multi-pill regimens, is characterized by a lower adherence rate among patients compared to the single-pill combination. A potential solution lies in single-pill formulations, drugs that combine two or more active ingredients at a fixed dosage within the same dosage unit. METHODS: In order to assess the potential pharmacoeconomic impact of single-pill treatment, a budget impact model (BIM) was developed, considering the combination of 100 mg acetylsalicylic acid and 5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg rosuvastatin. RESULTS: The use of the single pill, according to the selected scenario, could result in savings in Italy compared to the use of multi-pill at 100%, ranging from € 951 201 in the case of using both single and multi-pill at 50%, to € 1 902 402 in the case of using the single pill exclusively. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The developed BIM allows observing the potential savings that single-pill treatment could generate, linked both to an increase in adherence rates and the consequent improvement in clinical outcomes for patients, as well as the lower cost of medications. The use of single pills represents a promising solution to enhance patient adherence and reduce costs in the management of cardiovascular diseases in Italy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Assessment of Adherence to Cardiovascular Medicines in Saudi Population: An Observational Study in Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Drug adherence has been extensively evaluated in many developed countries in the West using different methods of medication adherence measurement; however, there are relatively few reports studying the adherence levels among Saudi patients. Thus, this study will evaluate the adherence to cardiovascular medicines in Saudi patients visiting (PSCC) in Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study relied on self-administered questionnaires. This study used the Morisky, Green, and Levine (MGL) Adherence Scale, also known as the MAQ (Medication Adherence Questionnaire), in PSCC's pharmacy waiting room in Qassim, Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: This study included 993 PSCC pharmacy waiting room patients. The patients were between 11 and 50 years old, and 52.7 percent were male. Most participants (71.2%) were above 50, while 16.3% were 41-50. Non-adherent patients cited traveling or being busy (28.6%), forgetting (18.7%), daily multi-medications (7.1%), being sleepy or sleeping (6.6%), and not repeating the prescription (6.6%). The Medicine Adherence Questionnaire indicated that 62.6 percent of patients fully adhered to their medications, and 21.6 percent usually adhered. Only drug adverse effects affected adherence (p =0.0001). CONCLUSION: The current study showed that there is a good level of adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases toward their diseases. The most common reasons for neglecting medications include traveling or being busy, forgetting multiple medications, and being tired or sleeping. Having experience with side effects was the only significant factor affecting adherence to medications.

The Inflation Reduction Act and Access to High-Cost Cardiovascular Therapies.

This Viewpoint discusses how the price negotiation for certain drugs under the Inflation Reduction Act will provide a unique opportunity to enhance access to therapies for older patients with cardiovascular conditions and diabetes.

Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Disease Medicines' Availability in Low-Cost Generic Drug Programs in the United States : A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Low-cost generic programs (LCGPs) that expand access to affordable cardiovascular disease (CVD) medicines can assist patients in achieving desired cardiovascular outcomes. It is important that LCGPs offer CVD medicines that promote evidence-based prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate LCGPs' coverage of evidence-based CVD medications using a clinical framework that examines coverage of core treatments, coverage of options with the highest-quality evidence, and the variety of medication options and strengths that create choices and allow dosing titration. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Publicly available LCGPs in March and April 2023 in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 19 LCGPs. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of LCGPs that offered evidence-based CVD medicines within a clinical framework for 6 CVDs (atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, post-acute coronary syndrome secondary prevention, and stable angina) according to 4 availability metrics (breadth, choice, high-quality evidence, and titratability). RESULTS: The availability of CVD medication varied by program, drug, and CVD condition. Some programs had more breadth and choice of coverage for most CVDs (H-E-B, Kroger, Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, and Walmart), whereas many had more focused coverage and others markedly limited offerings. Nearly all LCGPs offered angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, thiazides, and moderate-intensity statins, but availability was low for higher-cost or lower-use generics (antiplatelets and antiarrhythmics). Core pharmacotherapy coverage and choices were limited for atrial fibrillation and heart failure but widely available for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. LIMITATION: In-depth cost analysis was not investigated. CONCLUSION: Coverage of evidence-based medications for the 6 CVDs investigated varied by LCGP and condition. Because high availability of core CVD pharmacotherapy can enhance optimal disease state management, LCGPs should identify existing limitations in their coverage and continuously revise their formularies to improve the comprehensiveness of CVD medication coverage. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Guideline-Directed Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Management After Acute Ischemic Stroke: Findings from a National Health Care Service.

Patients with ischemic stroke are at high risk for future cardiovascular events and should be treated intensively with lipid-modifying agents. Combination lipid-lowering therapies are often needed to achieve updated guideline-directed treatment goals. However, real-world data on intensification of lipid-lowering therapies and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets early after ischemic stroke are limited. We extracted data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel on patients hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke between January 2020 and February 2022. Included were 3,027 patients surviving ≥1 year after stroke, with documented LDL-C levels and lipid-lowering medications at 2 time periods (0 to 3 months and 6 to 12 months after discharge). Participants were classified according to preexisting stroke and/or coronary artery disease. The use of combination lipid-lowering therapy (ezetimibe and/or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [monoclonal antibodies] inhibitor plus statin) in the study population increased between the 2 timepoints from 3.6% to 5.1%, reaching 10.5% in those with previous coronary artery disease and stroke. LDL-C levels <70 and <55 mg/100 ml were attained by 42.3% and 22.9% of patients early after hospitalization, and in 49.5% and 27.1% during 6 to 12 months after hospitalization, respectively. Attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C goals was higher in patients treated with combination lipid-lowering therapies and in those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. In conclusion, despite the advances in drug development and the availability of several mechanisms to lower cholesterol levels, the attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C targets after acute ischemic stroke is suboptimal. Intensification of treatment with combination lipid-lowering therapies after hospitalization is uncommonly performed in clinical practice, even in those with preexisting cardiovascular disease.

Efficacy and safety assessment of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and determine the optimal MRA treatment regimen in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to June 20, 2022. The composite kidney outcome, cardiovascular events, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR), estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR), serum potassium, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), creatine and creatine clearance were included for analysis. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) and calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: We included 26 studies with 15,531 participants. By pairwise meta-analyses, we found that MRA treatment could significantly reduce UACR in CKD patients with or without diabetes. Notably, compared to placebo, Finerenone was associated with a lower risk of composite kidney outcome and cardiovascular events. Data from NMA demonstrated an overt UACR reduction without increasing serum potassium by Apararenone, Esaxerenone, and Finerenone in CKD patients. Spironolactone decreased SBP and DBP but elevated CKD patients' serum potassium. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, Apararenone, Esaxerenone, and Finerenone might ameliorate albuminuria in CKD patients without causing elevated serum potassium levels. Remarkably, Finerenone conferred a cardiovascular benefit, and Spironolactone lowered blood pressure in CKD patients.

Social bias in artificial intelligence algorithms designed to improve cardiovascular risk assessment relative to the Framingham Risk Score: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention relies on timely identification of and intervention for individuals at risk. Risk assessment models such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have been shown to over-estimate or under-estimate risk in certain groups, such as socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) could be used to address such equity gaps to improve risk assessment; however, critical appraisal is warranted before ML-informed clinical decision-making is implemented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will employ an equity-lens to identify sources of bias (ie, race/ethnicity, gender and social stratum) in ML algorithms designed to improve CVD risk assessment relative to the FRS. A comprehensive literature search will be completed using MEDLINE, Embase and IEEE to answer the research question: do AI algorithms that are designed for the estimation of CVD risk and that compare performance with the FRS address the sources of bias inherent in the FRS? No study date filters will be imposed on the search, but English language filters will be applied. Studies describing a specific algorithm or ML approach that provided a risk assessment output for coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias (ie, atrial fibrillation), stroke or a global CVD risk score, and that compared performance with the FRS are eligible for inclusion. Papers describing algorithms for the diagnosis rather than the prevention of CVD will be excluded. A structured narrative review analysis of included studies will be completed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required. Ethics exemption was formally received from the General Research Ethics Board at Queen's University. The completed systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and parts of the work will be presented at relevant conferences.

Statin associated muscle symptoms (SAMS): strategies for prevention, assessment and management.

INTRODUCTION: Statins are the cornerstone for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction with recognized efficacy in primary and secondary prevention. Despite this, they remain underutilized due to concerns regarding adverse effects. Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are the most frequent cause of medication intolerance and discontinuation with a prevalence estimated at 10%, regardless of causality, with the consequence of increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. AREAS COVERED: This clinical perspective reviews recent developments in mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of statin myopathy, the role of the nocebo effect in perception of statin intolerance, and explores diverse components endorsed by international societies in establishing a statin intolerance syndrome. Non-statin drug alternatives that reduce low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol are also discussed, with emphasis on therapies with established effects on cardiovascular outcomes. EXPERT OPINION: Ultimately, a patient-centered clinical approach to managing SAMS is proposed to optimize statin tolerability, achieve guideline-recommended therapeutic goals and improve cardiovascular outcomes.

The Inflation Reduction Act and Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs can impede access to guideline-directed cardiovascular drugs. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will eliminate catastrophic coinsurance and cap annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D patients by 2025. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to estimate the IRA's impact on out-of-pocket costs for Part D beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The investigators chose 4 cardiovascular conditions that frequently require high-cost guideline-recommended drugs: severe hypercholesterolemia; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); HFrEF with atrial fibrillation (AF); and cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis. This study included 4,137 Part D plans nationwide and compared projected annual out-of-pocket drug costs for each condition in 2022 (baseline), 2023 (rollout), 2024 (5% catastrophic coinsurance eliminated), and 2025 ($2,000 cap on out-of-pocket costs). RESULTS: In 2022, mean projected annual out-of-pocket costs were $1,629 for severe hypercholesterolemia, $2,758 for HFrEF, $3,259 for HFrEF with AF, and $14,978 for amyloidosis. In 2023, the initial IRA rollout will not significantly change out-of-pocket costs for the 4 conditions. In 2024, elimination of 5% catastrophic coinsurance will lower out-of-pocket costs for the 2 costliest conditions: HFrEF with AF ($2,855, 12% reduction) and amyloidosis ($3,468, 77% reduction). By 2025, the $2,000 cap will lower out-of-pocket costs for all 4 conditions to $1,491 for hypercholesterolemia (8% reduction), $1,954 for HFrEF (29% reduction), $2,000 for HFrEF with AF (39% reduction), and $2,000 for cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (87% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The IRA will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs for the selected cardiovascular conditions by 8% to 87%. Future studies should assess the IRA's impact on adherence to guideline-directed cardiovascular therapies and health outcomes.

Design of the Equity in Prevention and Progression of Hypertension by Addressing Barriers to Nutrition and Physical Activity Study: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: High rates of hypertension and poverty in the rural south contribute to health disparities with Black adults experiencing higher rates of cardiovascular disease than White adults, underscoring the need to identify prevention strategies. METHODS: The equity in prevention and progression of hypertension by addressing barriers to nutrition and physical activity (EPIPHANY) study is a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a multilevel intervention to reduce barriers to a healthy lifestyle to lower blood pressure (BP) among rural, Black adults. Health education fairs offered to 20 churches in the Alabama Black Belt are being used to screen and enroll adults with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 120-139 mmHg and diastolic BP < 90 mmHg) who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication, according to the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline. Participants (n = 240) in churches randomized to the control condition are offered access to online resources including cooking and exercise classes. Participants (n = 240) in churches randomized to the intervention are receiving access to online resources; telephone-based peer support for lifestyle modification; funding for churches to develop programs to address food access and/or barriers to physical activity; and training of church members to serve as church champions to deliver training for church members on lifestyle modification. We will employ a Type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness design to assess effectiveness and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The EPIPHANY study is designed to prevent hypertension among rural, Black adults by addressing structural and individual barriers to lifestyle modification through peer support.

Potential Novel RNA-Targeting Agents for Effective Lipoprotein(a) Lowering: A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence From Completed and Ongoing Developmental Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: An increase in blood lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels, mostly genetically determined, has been identified as an independent risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. No drug has yet been approved that markedly lowers Lp(a) and thereby reduces residual cardiovascular risk. The aim of this article was to critically review the evidence from clinical development studies to date on the efficacy and safety of new RNA-based therapeutics for targeted lowering of Lp(a). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched without any language or date restriction up to November 5, 2022, and a total of 12 publications and 22 trial records were included. Several drugs were found that are currently in various stages of clinical development, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen and the small interfering RNA molecule olpasiran and drugs coded as SLN360 and LY3819469. Among them, pelacarsen has progressed the most, currently reaching phase 3. All these drugs have so far shown satisfactory pharmacokinetic properties, consistently high and stable, dose-dependent efficacy in lowering Lp(a) even by more than 90%, with an acceptable safety profile in subjects with highly elevated Lp(a). In addition, reports of early clinical trials with pelacarsen imply a promising suppressive effect on key mechanisms of atherogenesis. Future research should focus on confirming these beneficial clinical effects in patients with lower average Lp(a) levels and clearly demonstrating the association between lowering Lp(a) and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cardiovascular Risk Factors Under the Inflation Reduction Act.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket prescription drug costs contribute to financial toxicity, medication nonadherence, and adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Policymakers recently passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will cap Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000/year and expand full low-income subsidies (LIS). It is unclear how these provisions will affect Medicare beneficiaries with CV risk factors and/or conditions. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to characterize the population of Medicare beneficiaries with CV risk factors/conditions experiencing out-of-pocket prescription drug costs >$2,000/year and estimate their potential savings under the Inflation Reduction Act's spending cap; identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with out-of-pocket costs >$2,000/year; and characterize beneficiaries newly eligible for LIS under the Inflation Reduction Act. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with ≥1 CV risk factor/condition from 2016 to 2019. RESULTS: An annual estimated 34,056,335 ± 855,653 Medicare beneficiaries (mean ± SE) had ≥1 CV risk factor/condition, of whom 1,020,484 ± 77,055 experienced out-of-pocket drug costs >$2,000/year. The likelihood of experiencing out-of-pocket drug costs >$2,000/year was lower among adults ≥75 years vs 65 to 74 years (adjusted OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.93) and for low-income vs higher-income adults. Among beneficiaries currently spending >$2,000/year, estimated median out-of-pocket drug savings would be $855/year and total annual savings $1,723,031,307 ± $91,150,609 under the Inflation Reduction Act. An estimated 1,289,861 beneficiaries would also become newly eligible for LIS. CONCLUSIONS: More than 1 million older adults with CV risk factors and/or conditions spend >$2,000/year out-of-pocket on prescription drugs and will likely benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act's cap, with estimated total out-of-pocket savings of $1.7 billion/year, while another 1.3 million will also become newly eligible for LIS.

Value of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins for type 2 diabetes patients with and without established cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using real-world data.

AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using real-world data. METHODS: A Markov model was utilized to estimate healthcare costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of receiving treatments over 10 years from the healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were derived from the analyses of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database or published literature on Taiwanese T2D populations. Base-case analysis was performed for the overall study cohort and subgroup analyses were stratified by the presence or absence of established cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) or chronic kidney diseases (CKDs). RESULTS: Overall, using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs cost $6,053 per QALY gained. Results were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Among patients with established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy saved $673 (cost-saving) and cost $1,675 per QALY gained, respectively. Among patients without established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy cost $9,093 and $7,659 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for T2D patients represented good economic value in real-world practice. Pronounced economic benefits of GLP-1RA therapy among those with prior CVDs or CKDs support rational treatment decisions and optimal healthcare resource allocation for these patients.