Clinical management and primary prevention of suspected coronary artery disease guided by computed tomography.

AIMS: Despite the well established role of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) as a diagnostic gatekeeper, the yield of subsequent invasive coronary angiographies (ICA) remains low. We evaluated the adherence of CCTA integration in clinical management and primary prevention therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients referred for ICA after CCTA without known coronary artery disease (CAD) or structural cardiac pathologies. Based on computed tomography (CT) findings, patients were classified as appropriately or inappropriately referred to ICA, equaling Coronary Artery Disease - Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) categories 0-2 (<50% stenosis) and 3-5 (>50% stenosis), respectively. CT exams were compared regarding invasive findings and revascularizations. Integration of CT results into primary prevention measures was analyzed and compared to measures taken after ICA. RESULTS: Of 1005 patients referred for ICA, 81 (8.1%) had no obstructive CT findings and therefore no ICA indication. ICA inappropriate patients did not differ in symptom characteristics, but had a significantly lower revascularization rate (3.7% vs. 42.1%, P < 0.0001) compared with patients appropriately referred to ICA. In patients with indication for lipid-lowering therapy after the CCTA statin rate was 53.1% and significantly increased after ICA to 76.4% (P < 0.0001). In CCTA, obstructive findings in proximal-only lesions did not increase the revascularization rate (45.6% vs. 42.1%, P = 0.11) but missed nonproximal relevant stenoses (15.0% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.0001) compared with obstructive findings in all segments. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of inappropriateness was low, but there is relevant statin underutilization in eligible patients due to a lack of CT findings integration. Both ICA referrals and primary preventive therapy could be improved by the implementation of CT results based on CAD-RADS recommendations.

Change in cardiovascular risk assessment tool and updated Norwegian guidelines for cardiovascular disease in primary prevention increase the population proportion at risk: the Tromsø Study 2015-2016.

AIMS: To compare the population proportion at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) using the Norwegian NORRISK 1 that predicts 10-year risk of CVD mortality and the Norwegian national guidelines from 2009, with the updated NORRISK 2 that predicts 10-year risk of both fatal and non-fatal risk of CVD and the Norwegian national guidelines from 2017. METHODS: We included participants from the Norwegian population-based Tromsø Study (2015-2016) aged 40-69 years without a history of CVD (n=16 566). The total proportion eligible for intervention was identified by NORRISK 1 and the 2009 guidelines (serum total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥100 mm Hg) and NORRISK 2 and the 2017 guidelines (serum total cholesterol ≥7 mmol/L, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥100 mm Hg). RESULTS: The total proportion at high risk as defined by a risk score was 12.0% using NORRISK 1 and 9.8% using NORRISK 2. When including single risk factors specified by the guidelines, the total proportion eligible for intervention was 15.5% using NORRISK 1 and the 2009 guidelines and 18.9% using NORRISK 2 and the 2017 guidelines. The lowered threshold for total cholesterol and specified cut-off for LDL cholesterol stand for a large proportion of the increase in population at risk. CONCLUSION: The population proportion eligible for intervention increased by 3.4 percentage points from 2009 to 2017 using the revised NORRISK 2 score and guidelines.

Screening for Glucose Perturbations and Risk Factor Management in Dysglycemic Patients With Coronary Artery Disease-A Persistent Challenge in Need of Substantial Improvement: A Report From ESC EORP EUROASPIRE V.

OBJECTIVE: Dysglycemia, in this survey defined as impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or type 2 diabetes, is common in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. This European survey investigated dysglycemia screening and risk factor management of patients with CAD in relation to standards of European guidelines for cardiovascular subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The European Society of Cardiology's European Observational Research Programme (ESC EORP) European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events (EUROASPIRE) V (2016-2017) included 8,261 CAD patients, aged 18-80 years, from 27 countries. If the glycemic state was unknown, patients underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and measurement of glycated hemoglobin A1c. Lifestyle, risk factors, and pharmacological management were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 2,452 patients (29.7%) had known diabetes. OGTT was performed in 4,440 patients with unknown glycemic state, of whom 41.1% were dysglycemic. Without the OGTT, 30% of patients with type 2 diabetes and 70% of those with IGT would not have been detected. The presence of dysglycemia almost doubled from that self-reported to the true proportion after screening. Only approximately one-third of all coronary patients had completely normal glucose metabolism. Of patients with known diabetes, 31% had been advised to attend a diabetes clinic, and only 24% attended. Only 58% of dysglycemic patients were prescribed all cardioprotective drugs, and use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (3%) or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (1%) was small. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent action is required for both screening and management of patients with CAD and dysglycemia, in the expectation of a substantial reduction in risk of further cardiovascular events and in complications of diabetes, as well as longer life expectancy.

Adoption of coronary artery disease - Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS™) and observed impact on medical therapy and systolic blood pressure control.

BACKGROUND: CAD-RADS was developed to standardize communication of per-patient maximal stenosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and provide treatment recommendations and may impact primary prevention care and resource utilization. The authors sought to evaluate CAD-RADS adoption on preventive medical therapy and risk factor control amongst a mixed provider population. METHODS: Statins, aspirin (ASA), systolic blood pressure and, when available, lipid panel changes were abstracted for 1796 total patients undergoing CCTA in the 12 months before (non-standard reporting, NSR, cohort) and after adoption of the CAD-RADS reporting template. Only initiation of a medication in a treatment naïve patient, escalation from baseline dose, or transition to a higher potency was considered an escalation/initiation in lipid therapy. RESULTS: The CAD-RADS reporting template was utilized in 83.7% (751/897) of CCTAs after the CAD-RADS adoption period. After adjusting for any coronary artery disease (CAD) on CCTA, statin initiation/escalation was more commonly observed in the CAD-RADS cohort (aOR 1.46; 95%CI 1.12-1.90, p = 0.005), driven by higher rates of new statin initiation (aOR 1.79; 95%CI 1.23-2.58, p = 0.002). This resulted in a higher observed rates of total cholesterol improvement in the CAD-RADS cohort (58% vs 49%, p = 0.016). New ASA initiation was similar between reporting templates after adjustment for CAD on CCTA (aOR 1.40; 95%CI 0.97-2.02, p = 0.069). The ordering provider's specialty (cardiology vs non-cardiology) did not significantly impact the observed differences in initiation/escalation of statins and ASA (pinteraction = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of CAD-RADS reporting was associated with increased utilization of preventive medications, regardless of ordering provider specialty.

Quantifying the Value of Prevention: A Survey of Public Health Departments' Quantitative and Economic Modeling Capacity.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of local health departments' (LHDs') capacity for and perceived barriers to using quantitative/economic modeling information to inform policy and program decisions. DESIGN: We developed, tested, and deployed a novel survey to examine this topic. SETTING: The study's sample frame included the 200 largest LHDs in terms of size of population served plus all other accredited LHDs (n = 67). The survey was e-mailed to 267 LHDs; respondents completed the survey online using SurveyMonkey. PARTICIPANTS: Survey instructions requested that the survey be completed from the perspective of the entire health department by LHD's top executive or designate. A total of 63 unique LHDs responded (response rate: 39%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Capacity for quantitative and economic modeling was measured in 5 categories (routinely use information from models we create ourselves; routinely use information from models created by others; sometimes use information from models we create ourselves; sometimes use information from models created by others; never use information from modeling). Experience with modeling was measured in 4 categories (very, somewhat, not so, not at all). RESULTS: Few (9.5%) respondents reported routinely using information from models, and most who did used information from models created by others. By contrast, respondents reported high levels of interest in using models and in gaining training in their use and the communication of model results. The most commonly reported barriers to modeling were funding and technical skills. Nearly all types of training topics listed were of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Across a sample of large and/or accredited LHDs, we found modest levels of use of modeling coupled with strong interest in capacity for modeling and therefore highlight an opportunity for LHD growth and support. Both funding constraints and a lack of knowledge of how to develop and/or use modeling are barriers to desired progress around modeling. Educational or funding opportunities to promote capacity for and use of quantitative and economic modeling may catalyze use of modeling by public health practitioners.

Innovation to Create a Healthy and Sustainable Food System: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Current dietary intakes of North Americans are inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This occurs in the context of a food system that precludes healthy foods as the default choices. To develop a food system that is both healthy and sustainable requires innovation. This science advisory from the American Heart Association describes both innovative approaches to developing a healthy and sustainable food system and the current evidence base for the associations between these approaches and positive changes in dietary behaviors, dietary intakes, and when available, health outcomes. Innovation can occur through policy, private sector, public health, medical, community, or individual-level approaches and could ignite and further public-private partnerships. New product innovations, reformulations, taxes, incentives, product placement/choice architecture, innovative marketing practices, menu and product labeling, worksite wellness initiatives, community campaigns, nutrition prescriptions, mobile health technologies, and gaming offer potential benefits. Some innovations have been observed to increase the purchasing of healthy foods or have increased diversity in food choices, but there remains limited evidence linking these innovations with health outcomes. The demonstration of evidence-based improvements in health outcomes is challenging for any preventive interventions, especially those related to diet, because of competing lifestyle and environmental risk factors that are difficult to quantify. A key next step in creating a healthier and more sustainable food system is to build innovative system-level approaches that improve individual behaviors, strengthen industry and community efforts, and align policies with evidence-based recommendations. To enable healthier food choices and favorably impact cardiovascular health, immediate action is needed to promote favorable innovation at all levels of the food system.

Understanding Participants' Perceptions of Access to and Satisfaction With Chronic Disease Prevention Programs.

Despite the promise of incentive-based chronic disease prevention programs, comprehensive evidence on their accessibility among low-income populations remains limited. We adapted Aday and Andersen's framework to examine accessibility and consumer satisfaction within the Medicaid Incentives for the Prevention of Chronic Disease (MIPCD) cross-site demonstration. MIPCD provided 10 states with 5-year grants to implement incentivized chronic disease prevention and management programs for low-income and/or disabled-Medicaid enrolled-Americans. We conducted 36 focus group discussions between July 2014 and December 2015 with Medicaid enrollees participating in the MIPCD programs. We assessed participants' satisfaction by program type (i.e., diabetes prevention, diabetes management, hypertension reduction, smoking cessation, and weight management) related to three components: program enrollment and participation, staff courtesy, and program convenience. Based on Aday and Andersen's framework, we conducted thematic analysis to determine similarities and differences across MIPCD programs by type. Participant feedback confirmed the importance of several features of the Aday and Andersen framework, particularly programs with easy enrollment and participation procedures, courteous and helpful staff, and those that are convenient and flexible for participants. Participants valued programming around the clock via telephone and flexible, in-person hours of operation as well as proximity of the program to reliable transportation. We observed that most participants, despite enrollment and participation barriers, perceived programs as accessible and were willing to engage and continue to participate. This finding may reflect behavior change theory's perspective on personal readiness to change. Individuals in the preparation stage of change can effectively change health habits despite barriers they may encounter. In some cases, personal readiness to change was more impactful than consumer satisfaction at encouraging ongoing participation and perceived access to the programs. Thus, program developers may want to consider individual participant readiness to change and its impact on consumer satisfaction when designing, implementing, and evaluating behavior change initiatives.

Clinical profiles and risk assessment in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies.

INTRODUCTION: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia associated with the presence of persistent antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Owing to recent studies, not only APS patients but also incidentally-identified, asymptomatic aPL carriers are able to be stratified in terms of the risk of future thrombotic events, according to the variety and the titer of positive aPL tests and to the non-thrombotic, aPL-associated clinical manifestations. Areas covered: Here, we critically review (1) criteria manifestations of APS, (2) non-criteria manifestations of APS, (3) risk assessment in patients with APS and in aPL carriers, and (4) the potential role of primary thrombosis prophylaxis in aPL carriers. In addition, we discuss what we are currently able to do and what we need to do in the future for primary prophylaxis against a first thrombotic event. Expert commentary: We suggest a comprehensive algorithm to stratify thrombotic risk in aPL carriers, including criteria aPL, non-criteria aPL, their scoring systems, and non-criteria manifestations. However, further studies, particularly prospective randomized controlled trials, are highly warranted to establish an effective and tolerable treatment regimen for high risk aPL carriers.

Primary Prevention Using Cholesterol-Lowering Medications in Patients Meeting New Treatment Guidelines: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) issued new cholesterol treatment guidelines in 2013. Two of the groups designated for primary prevention were analyzed: patients with a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 190 mg per dL and diabetic patients aged 40-75 years. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of primary prevention as specified in the 2013 guidelines on cardiovascular event risk and cost. METHODS: Primary prevention patients were identified using laboratory and diagnostic data for Humana members from 2007 to 2013. Potential study patients were classified into 3 risk groups: elevated LDL-C, diabetes, and elevated LDL-C and diabetes. Patients receiving cholesterol-lowering medications before their index date were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into 2 treatment groups: (1) primary prevention patients who initiated treatment before experiencing any cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related event, and (2) patients who either did not initiate treatment until after experiencing a CVD event or never initiated treatment. The associations between initiating cholesterol-lowering medications for primary prevention and the risk for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. The effect of primary prevention on health care costs was estimated using generalized linear models. RESULTS: 91,066 patients met study selection criteria. Primary prevention rates were the lowest in diabetic patients (35%), who were newly designated for treatment in the 2013 guidelines. Primary prevention rates were higher for patients designated for treatment under earlier guidelines: 65% for patients with elevated LDL-C and 78% for the combined LDL-C and diabetes group. Primary prevention treatment was associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular event risk (up to 37%) and lower total all-cause costs (by $673) in the first post-index year. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating cholesterol-lowering medications for primary prevention, as specified in the ACC/AHA 2013 guidelines, for patients with high LDL-C and diabetes is associated with reduced CVD event risks and lower health care costs. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Han received fellowship support from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association Foundation (PhRMA) during the conduct of this study. Dougherty is employed by PhRMA. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Implications of New Cholesterol Treatment Guidelines on Statin Utilization, Intensity, and Costs in Active Duty Service Members.

Background: The recommendations in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood cholesterol guidelines expanded the indications and level of intensity of statin therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We assessed the treatment and cost implications of theseguidelines within a cohort of active duty service members. Methods: Using the military electronic medical record system, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application, we randomly selected 1,000 active duty persons aged 40 yr or older and reviewed their lipid profiles and medical records to identify risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We compared the recommended cholesterol treatment under the new ACC/AHA guidelines versus the Third Adult Treatment Panel of the National Cholesterol Education Program. Findings: The mean age was 49 ± 7 yr, 36% were female, 22% were on baseline statin therapy (4% high intensity), and 13% were not at Third Adult Treatment Panel cholesterol goal. There was no difference in the proportion eligible for statin therapy between ACC/AHA and Third Adult Treatment Panel guidelines. Statin treatment under the ACC/AHA guideline resulted in a mean statin dose increase from 25 ± 20 mg to 36 ± 25 mg (p < 0.001) with an increase in those eligible for high-intensity statin therapy, 6% to 11% (p < 0.001). These changes translated to higher estimated yearly statin acquisition costs, $40,197 versus $52,527 per 1,000 patient-years of treatment (p < 0.001). Discussion: Within a low-risk active duty population over 40 yr, application of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines may not significantly increase those eligible for statins, but may increase statin treatment intensity and costs.

Marshaling the Translational Potential of MC1R for Precision Risk Assessment of Melanoma.

Melanoma rates have been increasing in the United States, and neither primary (sun protection and avoidance) nor secondary (skin examination) prevention is practiced consistently, even by those with melanoma risk factors. Inherited variation at MC1R is a robust marker for increased risk of melanoma, even among individuals with "sun-resistant" phenotypes. Although MC1R conveys important information about inherited melanoma risk for a broad spectrum of individuals, concerns that MC1R feedback could have negative consequences, including increased distress about melanoma, inappropriate use of health services, and development of a false sense of security, are valid and require empirical examination. The time is right for high-quality research focusing on the translation of MC1R genotype into clinical and public health practice. If studies show MC1R genetic risk screening is effective at motivating behavior change, more melanomas may be detected at earliest stages for which surgical excision is highly curative or a large number of melanomas may be prevented altogether. While other genetic markers for melanoma susceptibility may emerge in the coming years, the burgeoning research agenda on the public health translational potential of MC1R genetic risk screening will inform and usefully advance current and future precision risk assessment of melanoma. Cancer Prev Res; 11(3); 121-4. ©2017 AACR.

What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers' views and practices.

BACKGROUND: Health checks identify (risk factors for) disease in people without symptoms. They may be offered by the government through population screenings and by other providers to individual users as 'personal health checks'. Health check providers' perspective of 'good' health checks may further the debate on the ethical evaluation and possible regulation of these personal health checks. METHODS: In 2015, we interviewed twenty Dutch health check providers on criteria for 'good' health checks, and the role these criteria play in their practices. RESULTS: Providers unanimously formulate a number of minimal criteria: Checks must focus on (risk factors for) treatable/preventable disease; Tests must be reliable and clinically valid; Participation must be informed and voluntary; Checks should provide more benefits than harms; Governmental screenings should be cost-effective. Aspirational criteria mentioned were: Follow-up care should be provided; Providers should be skilled and experienced professionals that put the benefit of (potential) users first; Providers should take time and attention. Some criteria were contested: People should be free to test on any (risk factor for) disease; Health checks should only be performed in people at high risk for disease that are likely to implement health advice; Follow up care of privately funded tests should not drain on collective resources. Providers do not always fulfil their own criteria. Their reasons reveal conflicts between criteria, conflicts between criteria and other ethical values, and point to components in the (Dutch) organisation of health care that hinder an ethical provision of health checks. Moreover, providers consider informed consent a criterion that is hard to establish in practice. CONCLUSIONS: According to providers, personal health checks should meet the same criteria as population screenings, with the exception of cost-effectiveness. Providers do not always fulfil their own criteria. Results indicate that in thinking about the ethics of health checks potential conflicts between criteria and underlying values should be explicated, guidance in weighing of criteria should be provided and the larger context should be taken into account: other actors than providers need to take up responsibility, and ideally benefits and harms of health checks should be weighed against other measures targeting (risk factors for) disease.

The WHF Roadmap for Reducing CV Morbidity and Mortality Through Prevention and Control of RHD.

Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a preventable non-communicable condition that disproportionately affects the world's poorest and most vulnerable. The World Heart Federation Roadmap for improved RHD control is a resource designed to help a variety of stakeholders raise the profile of RHD nationally and globally, and provide a framework to guide and support the strengthening of national, regional and global RHD control efforts. The Roadmap identifies the barriers that limit access to and uptake of proven interventions for the prevention and control of RHD. It also highlights a variety of established and promising solutions that may be used to overcome these barriers. As a general guide, the Roadmap is meant to serve as the foundation for the development of tailored plans of action to improve RHD control in specific contexts.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARYComplete Appendix to Guidelines available at http://journals.aace.com.

OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Each Recommendation is based on a diligent review of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 Recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 202 (29.1 %) are evidence level (EL) 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 237 (34.1%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies and health-related organizations can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of patients with various lipid disorders. These recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously recommended and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to patients with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and pediatric patients with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome AHA = American Heart Association ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG = clinical practice guidelines CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia hsCRP = high-sensitivity C-reactive protein LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

CAC Score Improves Coronary and CV Risk Assessment Above Statin Indication by ESC and AHA/ACC Primary Prevention Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the difference in indication for statin therapy by European Society of Cardiology (ESC) versus American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines and to quantify the potential additional role of coronary artery calcification (CAC) score over updated guidelines in a primary prevention cohort. BACKGROUND: Recently, ESC and AHA/ACC updated the guidelines regarding statin therapy in primary prevention. METHODS: In 3,745 subjects (59 ± 8 years of age, 47% men) from the population based longitudinal Heinz Nixdorf Recall cohort study without cardiovascular disease or lipid-lowering therapy at baseline CAC score was assessed between 2000 and 2003. Subjects remained unaware of their initial CAC score. Statin indication was determined according to 2012 ESC and 2013 AHA/ACC guidelines based on subjects individual baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The frequency of statin recommendation was lower according to ESC compared to AHA/ACC guidelines (34% vs. 56%; p < 0.0001), whereas low CAC score (<100) was common in subjects with statin indication by both guidelines (59% for ESC, 62% for AHA/ACC). During 10.4 ± 2.0 years of follow-up, 131 myocardial infarctions occurred. For ESC recommendations, CAC score differentiated risk for subjects without (1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4 to 1.5] vs. 6.5 [95% CI: 4.1 to 8.9] coronary events per 1,000 person-years for CAC 0 vs. ≥100) and with statin indication (2.6 [95% CI: 0.6 to 4.7] vs. 9.9 [95% CI: 7.3 to 12.5] per 1,000 person-years for CAC 0 vs. ≥100). Likewise, CAC score stratified proportions experiencing events subjects with statin indication according to AHA/ACC (2.7 [95% CI: 1.1 to 4.2] vs. 9.1 [95% CI: 7.0 to 11.0] per 1,000 person-years for CAC 0 vs. ≥100), whereas event rate in subjects without statin indication was low (1.1 [95% CI: 0.65 to 1.68] per 1,000 person-years). CONCLUSIONS: Current ESC and AHA/ACC guidelines lead to markedly different recommendation regarding statin therapy in a German primary prevention cohort. Quantification of CAC score in addition to the guidelines improves stratification between subjects at high versus low risk for coronary events, indicating that CAC scoring may help to match intensified risk factor modification to atherosclerotic plaque burden as well as actual risk while avoiding therapy in subjects with low coronary atherosclerosis that have low 10-year event rate.

The Efficacy of an American Indian Culturally-Based Risk Prevention Program for Upper Elementary School Youth Residing on the Northern Plains Reservations.

Culturally-based risk behavior prevention programs for American Indian elementary school children are sparse. Thus a group of American Indian educators collaborated in the creation of a program that helps children make healthy decisions based on their cultural and traditional value system. In this paper the effectiveness of Lakota Circles of Hope (LCH), an elementary school culturally-based prevention program was studied and evaluated. Three cohorts of fourth and fifth graders participated in a mixed methods quasi-experimental evaluative research design that included focus groups and surveys prior to and following the intervention. Five research questions regarding the program's impact on students' self-esteem and self-efficacy, Lakota identity, communication, conflict resolution and risk behaviors were addressed in this study. Participants were compared to non-participants in three American Indian reservation school sites. Educators completed a survey to record their observations and feedback regarding the implementation of the program within their respective school sites. The study provides preliminary evidence that, when delivered with fidelity, LCH contributes to statistically significant changes in risk behaviors, Lakota identity, respect for others, and adult and parent communication. A two-way multivariate analysis of variance with post hoc analysis of data collected from the LCH participants (N = 1392) were used to substantiate a significant increase in respect for others and a decrease in risk behaviors which included alcohol, tobacco, and substance use at the 0.10 alpha level. Significant positive improvements in parent and adult communication and an increased Lakota identity at the 0.01 alpha level were obtained. There were no significant differences in self-esteem and conflict resolution from pre to post intervention and in comparison with non LCH participating students.

Quality of Care for HIV/AIDS and for Primary Prevention by HIV Specialists and Nonspecialists.

The role of HIV specialists in providing primary care to persons living with HIV/AIDS is evolving, given their increased incidence of comorbidities. Multivariate logit analysis compared compliance with sentinel preventive screening tests and interventions among publicly insured Californians with and without access to HIV specialists in 2010. Quality-of-care indicators [visit frequency, CD4 and viral load (VL) assessments, influenza vaccine, tuberculosis (TB) testing, lipid profile, glucose blood test, and Pap smears for women] were related to patient characteristics and provider HIV caseload. There were 9377 adult Medicare enrollees (71% also had Medicaid coverage) and 2076 enrollees with only Medicaid coverage. Adjusted for patient characteristics, patients seeing providers with greater HIV caseloads (>50 HIV patients) were more likely to meet visit frequency guidelines in both Medicare [98%; confidence interval (CI 97.5-98.2) and Medicaid (97%; CI 96.2-98.0), compared to 60% (CI 57.1-62.3) and 45% (CI 38.3-50.4), respectively, seeing providers without large HIV caseloads (p < 0.001). Patients seeing providers with larger caseloads were significantly more likely to have CD4 (p < 0.001), VL (p < 0.001), and TB testing (p < 0.05). A larger percentage of patients seeing large-volume Medicare providers received influenza vaccinations. Provider caseload was unrelated to lipid or glucose assessments or Pap Smears for women. Patients with access to large-volume providers were more likely to meet clinical guidelines for visits, CD4, VL, tuberculosis testing, and influenza vaccinations, and were not less likely to receive primary preventive care. Substantial insufficiencies remain in both monitoring to assess viral suppression and in preventive care.

An assessment of the effectiveness of iodine prophylaxis in pregnant women--analysis in one of reference gynaecological-obstetric centres in Poland.

INTRODUCTION: Iodine deficiency in pregnant women, even of a mild degree, may have adverse effects on both the mother and the foetus. Despite the obligatory model of functioning iodine prophylaxis in Poland, the iodine supply in women during pregnancy and physiological lactation is insufficient. Therefore, those groups should take additional iodine supplementation at a dose of 150-200 µg/day. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of iodine prophylaxis in pregnant women in Poland. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The assessment of iodine supply, urine iodine concentration (UIC) in the spot urine sample, as well as levels of TSH, fT4, thyroid antibodies, and thyroid volume, was performed at one time point in 115 women (7 in the 1st trimester, 61 in the 2nd trimester, and 47 in the 3rd trimester). RESULTS: Only 45.2% of women were taking additional amounts of iodine at any time of pregnancy, and the median ioduria was 79.6 µg/L, which pointed to an insufficient supply of iodine. The percentage of women using iodine supplementation increased with the length of pregnancy, which indicates that the recommendations are implemented too late. In women who took iodine supplementation, ioduria was significantly higher than in those not applying iodine supplementation (median 129.4 µg/L vs. 73.0 µg/L; p < 0.001); however, this was still below recommended values. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of iodine prophylaxis in pregnant women in Poland, evaluated on the basis of the analysis of randomly chosen sample, is not satisfactory in terms of compliance with the recommendations and, possibly, the quality of supplementation.

Are the current recommendations for the use of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease applicable in low-income countries?

Although evidence has accumulated that long-term aspirin therapy is beneficial in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), a lot of controversies persist regarding the benefit of aspirin use in primary prevention of CVD. In low-income countries (LIC) specifically, the decision to prescribe aspirin for primary CVD prevention is more problematic, as there is a dearth of evidence in this regard. Aspirin has been shown to have relative beneficial effects in preventing a first myocardial infarction, but not stroke. However, as stroke is the prevailing CVD in many LIC, especially in Africa, the benefit of aspirin in these settings is therefore questionable. Indeed, there is no published trial that has evaluated the benefits and risks of continuous aspirin therapy in populations of LIC. Furthermore, though cardiovascular risk assessment is crucial in decision-making for the use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD, there are no risk assessment tools that have been validated in African populations. Studies are urgently warranted, to determine the usefulness of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD in low-income settings where the drug is highly available and affordable, as CVD is becoming the leading cause of deaths in LIC.