The future of cardiovascular clinical research in North America and beyond-addressing challenges and leveraging opportunities through unique academic and grassroots collaborations.

Recent developments have highlighted the challenges facing cardiovascular clinical research in global contemporary practice, particularly in North America, including shifting priorities for drug development targets, increasing regulatory requirements, and expensive operational approaches for conducting randomized clinical trials. Nonetheless, emerging trends such as the consolidation of practices and hospitals into integrated health systems, the integration of electronic health records from thousands of practices into large data repositories to support prospective research studies, and streamlined operational approaches such as registry-based trials and risk-based monitoring have created numerous opportunities to disrupt the clinical research paradigm. Within this context, academic research organizations around the globe, particularly a strengthened collaboration of 3 established academic research organizations in North America, are uniquely positioned to promote and develop grassroots collaborations across all types of clinical practices, to delineate successful solutions to obstacles that limit clinical research initiatives, and to guide the future of cardiovascular research in the global research environment.

Risk stratification and stroke prevention therapy care gaps in Canadian atrial fibrillation patients (from the Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation chart audit).

The objectives of this national chart audit (January to June 2013) of 6,346 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF; ≥18 years without a significant heart valve disorder) from 647 primary care physicians were to (1) describe the frequency of stroke and bleed risk assessments in patients with nonvalvular AF by primary care physicians, including the accuracy of these assessments relative to established predictive indexes; (2) outline contemporary methods of anticoagulation used; and (3) report the time in the therapeutic range among patients prescribed warfarin. An annual stroke risk assessment was not undertaken in 15% and estimated without a formal risk tool in 33%; agreement with CHADS2 score estimation was seen in 87% of patients. Major bleeding risk assessment was not undertaken in 25% and estimated without a formal risk tool in 47%; agreement with HAS-BLED score estimation was observed in 64% with physician overestimation in 26% of patients. Antithrombotic therapy included warfarin (58%), dabigatran (22%), rivaroxaban (14%), and apixaban (<1%). Among warfarin-treated patients, the median international normalized ratio was 2.4 and time in therapeutic range (TTR) was 73%; however, the TTR was <50% in 845 (25%), 50% to 69% in 674 (20%), and ≥70% in 1,827 (55%) patients. In conclusion, we describe a contemporary real-world elderly population with AF at important risk for stroke. There is apparent overestimation of bleeding risk in many patients. Warfarin was the dominant stroke prevention treatment; however, the suggested TTR target was achieved in only 55% of these patients.

Contemporary management of dyslipidemia in high-risk patients: targets still not met.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to evaluate treatment patterns and the attainment of current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)-recommended lipid targets in unselected high-risk ambulatory patients. METHODS: Between December 2001 and December 2004, the prospective Vascular Protection and Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid Lowering Registries recruited 8056 outpatients with diabetes, established cardiovascular disease (CVD), or both, who had a complete lipid profile measured within 6 months before enrollment. The primary outcome measure was treatment success, defined as the achievement of LDL-cholesterol<2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) according to NCEP guidelines. We examined patient characteristics and use of lipid-modifying therapy in relation to treatment outcome, which included the recently proposed optional LDL-cholesterol target (<1.8 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]) for very high-risk patients. RESULTS: Overall, 78.2% of patients were treated with a statin and 51.2% had achieved the recommended LDL-cholesterol target. Treatment success rate was highest in diabetic patients with CVD (59.6%), followed by nondiabetic patients with CVD (51.8%), and lowest (44.8%) in diabetic patients without CVD (P<.0001). Compared with untreated patients, those on statins were more likely to achieve target (34.4% vs 55.9%, P<.0001). Of the patients who failed to meet target, only 9.9% were taking high-dose statin, while 29.3% were not prescribed any statin therapy. Among very high-risk patients, 20.8% attained the optional LDL-cholesterol goal. In multivariable analysis, advanced age, male sex, diabetes, coronary artery disease, coronary revascularization, and use of statin were associated with treatment success (all P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Despite the well-established benefits of available lipid-modifying drugs, current management of dyslipidemia continues to be suboptimal, with a substantial proportion of patients failing to achieve guideline-recommended lipid targets. There remains an important opportunity to improve the quality of care for these high-risk patients.