Contextualizing National Policies Regulating Access to Low-Dose Aspirin in America and Europe Using the Full Report of a Transatlantic Patient Survey of Aspirin in Preventive Cardiology.

Background Aspirin is widely administered to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, appropriate use of aspirin depends on patient understanding of its risks, benefits, and indications, especially where aspirin is available over the counter (OTC). Methods and Results We did a survey of patient-reported 10-year cardiovascular risk; aspirin therapy status; form of aspirin access (OTC versus prescription); and knowledge of the risks, benefits, and role of aspirin in CVD prevention. Consecutive adults aged ≥50 years with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor attending outpatient clinics in America and Europe were recruited. We also systematically reviewed national policies regulating access to low-dose aspirin for CVD prevention. At each site, 150 responses were obtained (300 total). Mean±SD age was 65±10 years, 40% were women, and 41% were secondary prevention patients. More than half of the participants at both sites did not know (1) their own level of 10-year CVD risk, (2) the expected magnitude of reduction in CVD risk with aspirin, or (3) aspirin's bleeding risks. Only 62% of all participants reported that aspirin was routinely indicated for secondary prevention, whereas 47% believed it was routinely indicated for primary prevention (P=0.048). In America, 83.5% participants obtained aspirin OTC compared with 2.5% in Europe (P<0.001). Finally, our review of European national policies found only 2 countries where low-dose aspirin was available OTC. Conclusions Many patients have poor insight into their objectively calculated 10-year cardiovascular risk and do not know the risks, benefits, and role of aspirin in CVD prevention. Aspirin is mainly obtained OTC in America in contrast to Europe, where most countries restrict access to low-dose aspirin.

Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Major guidelines recommend the use of secondary targets, such as non-HDL-C and apoB, to further reduce cardiovascular risk. We aimed to evaluate the proportion at which newer, more aggressive secondary lipid targets are exceeded in patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL estimated by Friedewald (LDLf-C) and Martin/Hopkins equations (LDLm-C). METHODS: We analyzed patients from the Very Large Database of Lipids with fasting lipids and estimated LDL-C <70 mg/dL by the Friedewald equation and Martin/Hopkins algorithm. Patients were categorized into three groups: LDL-C <40, 40-54 and 55-69 mg/dL. We calculated the proportion of patients with non-HDL-C and apoB above high-risk targets (non-HDL-C ≥ 100 and apoB ≥ 80mg/dL) for those with LDL-C 55-69 mg/dL and very high-risk targets (non-HDL-C ≥ 85 and apoB ≥ 65mg/dL) for those with LDL-C < 40 mg/dL and 40-54 mg/dL. RESULTS: In patients with LDLf-C < 40 mg/dL, ~8 and ~4% did not meet high-risk secondary targets and ~21 and 25% did not meet very high-risk secondary targets for non-HDL-C and apoB, respectively. However, in patients with LDLm-C < 40 mg/dL <1% did not meet high-risk targets, while only 3% did not meet the very-high risk secondary target for apoB and none exceeded the very-high risk secondary target for non-HDL-C. Among individuals with LDL-C< 40 mg/dL, there were increasing proportions of individuals not meeting the very high-risk secondary apoB target at greater triglyceride levels, reaching up to ~19% using LDLm-C compared to ~60% using LDLf-C when triglyceride levels were 200-399 mg/dL. There were higher proportions of individuals not meeting high and very-high risk targets as triglyceride levels increased among those with LDL-C 40-54 and 55-69 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: In a large, US cross-sectional sample of individuals with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, secondary non-HDL-C and apoB targets overall provide modest utility. However, attainment of very high-risk cutpoints for non-HDL-C and apoB is not achieved in a significant fraction of patients with triglycerides 200-399 mg/dL, even when using a more accurate calculation of LDL-C.