Risk Stratification and Treatment of Obesity for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we discuss contemporary and emerging approaches for risk stratification and management of excess adiposity for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Obesity is simultaneously a pandemic-scale disease and major risk factor for the incidence and progression of a wide range of cardiometabolic conditions, but risk stratification and treatment remain clinically challenging. However, sex-, race-, and ethnicity-sensitive anthropometric measures, body composition-focused imaging, and health burden-centric staging systems have emerged as important facilitators of holistic risk prediction. Further, expanding therapeutic approaches, including comprehensive lifestyle programs, anti-obesity pharmacotherapies, device/endoscopy-based interventions, metabolic surgery, and novel healthcare delivery resources offer new empowerment for cardiovascular risk reduction in individuals with obesity. Personalized risk stratification and weight management are central to reducing the lifetime prevalence and impact of cardiovascular disease. Further evidence informing long-term safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of novel approaches targeting obesity are critically needed.

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a virtual care team guided strategy (107 encounters among 83 patients) or usual care (145 encounters among 115 patients) across 3 centers in an integrated health system. In the virtual care team group, clinicians received up to 1 daily GDMT optimization suggestion from a physician-pharmacist team. The primary effectiveness outcome was in-hospital change in GDMT optimization score (+2 initiations, +1 dose up-titrations, -1 dose down-titrations, -2 discontinuations summed across classes). In-hospital safety outcomes were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS: Among 252 encounters, the mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 85 (34%) were women, 35 (14%) were Black, and 43 (17%) were Hispanic. The virtual care team strategy significantly improved GDMT optimization scores vs usual care (adjusted difference: +1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; P < 0.001). New initiations (44% vs 23%; absolute difference: +21%; P = 0.001) and net intensifications (44% vs 24%; absolute difference: +20%; P = 0.002) during hospitalization were higher in the virtual care team group, translating to a number needed to intervene of 5 encounters. Overall, 23 (21%) in the virtual care team group and 40 (28%) in usual care experienced 1 or more adverse events (P = 0.30). Acute kidney injury, bradycardia, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with HFrEF, a virtual care team guided strategy for GDMT optimization was safe and improved GDMT across multiple hospitals in an integrated health system. Virtual teams represent a centralized and scalable approach to optimize GDMT.