State-Level Social Vulnerability Index and Healthcare Access in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (from the BRFSS Survey).

We analyzed the association between social vulnerability index (SVI) and healthcare access among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Using cross-sectional data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2016 to 2019, we identified measures related to healthcare access in individuals with ASCVD, which included healthcare coverage, presence of primary care clinician, duration since last routine checkup, delay in access to healthcare, inability to see doctor because of cost, and cost-related medication nonadherence. We analyzed the association of state-level SVI (higher SVI denotes higher social vulnerability) and healthcare access using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models. The study population comprised 203,347 individuals aged 18 years or older who reported a history of ASCVD. In a multivariable-adjusted analysis, prevalence odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for participants residing in states in the third tertile of SVI compared with those in the first tertile (used as reference) were as follows: absence of healthcare coverage = 1.03 (0.85 to 1.24), absence of primary care clinician = 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58), >1 year since last routine checkup = 1.09 (0.96 to 1.23), delay in access to healthcare = 1.39 (1.18, 1.63), inability to see a doctor because of cost = 1.21 (1.06 to 1.40), and cost-related medication nonadherence = 1.10 (0.83 to 1.47). In conclusion, SVI is associated with healthcare access in those with pre-existing ASCVD. Due to the ability of SVI to simultaneously and holistically capture many of the factors of social determinants of health, SVI can be a useful measure for identifying high-risk populations.

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in Current Clinical Practice: How to Define Its Value?

OPINION STATEMENT: Detecting subclinical atherosclerosis with coronary artery calcium (CAC) is promising for identifying individuals at risk for cardiovascular events and appears to be a robust tool for guiding initiation of appropriate and timely primary prevention strategies. However, how do we best determine its clinical value? It is clear that traditional risk prediction models based primarily on age, gender, and risk factors are insufficient for ideal personalization of risk estimation. It is now well established from epidemiologic studies that CAC adds to traditional risk scores for a more accurate risk prediction. However, such traditional epidemiology studies have limitations in establishing "clinical value," and they must be supplemented by additional data before being translated into strong recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Fortunately, over the last few years, the research around CAC has matured to include data supporting enhanced clinician-patient risk discussions, shared decision-making, flexible risk factor treatment goals, specific clinical decision algorithms, as well as favorable cost-effectiveness analyses. We had moved from a time when we asked "if CAC adds to the risk score" to a time when we are asking "does CAC facilitate a shared decision-making model matching risk, treatment, and patient preferences?" A new risk calculator incorporating CAC into global risk scoring, and 2017 guidelines on the use of CAC published by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), reflect this new approach. In this article, we review the recent transition to this more clinically relevant CAC research that may support a stronger recommendation for its use in future prevention guidelines.

Recent Advances in the Clinical Management of Lead Poisoning.

Lead poisoning is a historic universal disease. Acute or chronic lead exposure may cause reversible or even permanent damages in human beings. Environmental lead exposure is a global health concern in children. Occupational lead poisoning is still a health issue, particularly in developing countries. During the last decades, new methods and medications have been advocated for the prevention and treatment of lead poisoning. This review deals mainly with recent developments in the management of lead poisoning. Sources of lead exposure are introduced, and methods for the primary prevention of lead poisoning are discussed. Details for the screening of adults and children are also explained to serve as a practical guideline for the secondary prevention. Standard chelation therapy in different groups and up-to-date less toxic new medications for the treatment of lead poisoning are finally discussed. Our published clinical research on the therapeutic effects of garlic tablets in mild to moderate occupational lead poisoning will also be discussed.

Comparison of therapeutic effects of garlic and d-Penicillamine in patients with chronic occupational lead poisoning.

Previous studies on animals have revealed that garlic (Allium sativum) is effective in reducing blood and tissue lead concentrations. The aim of this study was to investigate therapeutic effects of garlic and compare it with d-penicillamine in patients with chronic lead poisoning. After coordination and obtaining informed consent, clinical examinations and blood lead concentration (BLC) of 117 workers at a car battery industry were investigated. BLC was determined by heated graphite atomization technique of an atomic absorption spectrometer. The workers were randomly assigned into two groups of garlic (1200 µg allicin, three times daily) and d-penicillamine (250 mg, three times daily) and treated for 4 weeks. BLC was determined again 10days post-treatment. Clinical signs and symptoms of lead poisoning were also investigated and compared with the initial findings. Clinical improvement was significant in a number of clinical manifestations including irritability (p = 0.031), headache (p = 0.028), decreased deep tendon reflex (p=0.019) and mean systolic blood pressure (0.021) after treatment with garlic, but not d-penicillamine. BLCs were reduced significantly (p=0.002 and p=0.025) from 426.32±185.128 to 347.34±121.056 µg/L and from 417.47±192.54 to 315.76±140.00µg/L in the garlic and d-penicillamine groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p=0.892) between the two groups. The frequency of side effects was significantly (p=0.023) higher in d-penicillamine than in the garlic group. Thus, garlic seems safer clinically and as effective as d-penicillamine. Therefore, garlic can be recommended for the treatment of mild-to-moderate lead poisoning.