Statin-associated muscle symptoms in the VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL).

Statins are highly effective medications that reduce risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but are very commonly discontinued by patients because of muscle symptoms. The risk factors for statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are not well understood, so in this study we examined the predictors of SAMS in a well-studied cohort of patients in the VITAL trial. We found that female sex and younger age (50-64 years) were significant, independent predictors of higher rates of SAMS.

Facility-Level Variation in Reported Statin-Associated Side Effects Among Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease-Perspective from the Veterans Affair Healthcare System.

PURPOSE: Statin-associated side effects (SASEs) can limit statin adherence and present a potential barrier to optimal statin utilization. How standardized reporting of SASEs varies across medical facilities has not been well characterized. METHODS: We assessed facility-level variation in SASE reporting among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease receiving care across the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. The facility rates for SASE reporting were expressed as cases per 1000 patients with ASCVD. Facility-level variation was determined using hierarchical regression analysis to calculate median rate ratios (MRR [95% confidence interval]) by first using an unadjusted model and then adjusting for patient, provider, and facility characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,248,158 patients with ASCVD included in our study across 130 facilities, 13.7% had at least one SASE reported. Individuals with a history of SASE were less likely to be on a statin at follow-up compared with those without SASE (72.0% vs 80.8%, p < 0.01). The median (interquartile range) facility rate of SASE reported was 140.5 (109.4-167.7) cases per 1000 patients with ASCVD. Significant facility-level variation in the rate of SASE reported was observed: MRR 1.38 (1.33-1.44) in the unadjusted model and MRR 1.56 (1.47-1.65) in the adjusted model. CONCLUSION: Significant facility-level variation in SASE reporting was found within the VA healthcare system suggesting room for improvement in standardized documentation of SASEs among medical facilities. This has the potential to lead to improvement in statin utilization.

How low is safe? The frontier of very low (<30 mg/dL) LDL cholesterol.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a proven causative factor for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Individuals with genetic conditions associated with lifelong very low LDL-C levels can be healthy. We now possess the pharmacological armamentarium (statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors) to reduce LDL-C to an unprecedented extent. Increasing numbers of patients are expected to achieve very low (<30 mg/dL) LDL-C. Cardiovascular event reduction increases log linearly in association with lowering LDL-C, without reaching any clear plateau even when very low LDL-C levels are achieved. It is still controversial whether lower LDL-C levels are associated with significant clinical adverse effects (e.g. new-onset diabetes mellitus or possibly haemorrhagic stroke) and long-term data are needed to address safety concerns. This review presents the familial conditions characterized by very low LDL-C, analyses trials with lipid-lowering agents where patients attained very low LDL-C, and summarizes the benefits and potential adverse effects associated with achieving very low LDL-C. Given the potential for cardiovascular benefit and short-term safe profile of very low LDL-C, it may be advantageous to attain such low levels in specific high-risk populations. Further studies are needed to compare the net clinical benefit of non-LDL-C-lowering interventions with very low LDL-C approaches, in addition to comparing the efficacy and safety of very low LDL-C levels vs. current recommended targets.

A possible mechanism of hyperlipidemia in a patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer on lorlatinib therapy.

INTRODUCTION: We report the case of a woman who developed hyperlipidemia on lorlatinib therapy found to have minimal change disease. We review therapies for cancer known to alter the lipid profile, in addition to reviewing secondary hyperlipidemia workup. We also propose a mechanism for lorlatinib-induced hyperlipidemia. CASE REPORT: A 63 year old woman with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma on lorlatinib therapy develops marked hyperlipidemia.Management & outcome: A secondary hyperlipidemia workup is performed which reveals nephrotic range proteinuria. Minimal change disease is found on renal biopsy. The hyperlipidemia was initially responsive to statin therapy, then required addition of ezetimibe. DISCUSSION: This is a case of hyperlipidemia in a patient on lorlatinib. The case highlights that therapies for lung cancer and other malignancies have the potential to alter the lipid profile. We propose minimal change disease as a possible mechanism for lorlatinib-induced dyslipidemia. Additionally, we discuss the crucial aspects of secondary hyperlipidemia workup.

The Role of Sex-Specific Risk Factors in the Risk Assessment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease for Primary Prevention in Women.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Robust evidence is emerging regarding the contribution of sex-specific risk factors to a woman's unique risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This review summarizes the available literature regarding the association of sex-specific risk factors and ASCVD in women. RECENT FINDINGS: The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines recommend estimation of 10-year risk of a first ASCVD event using the 2013 Pooled Cohort Equations. This can be further personalized by identifying sex-specific risk factors present in a woman's history. There are multiple vulnerable periods across a woman's life course that are associated with increased risk of ASCVD. Risk factors across the reproductive life course that have been shown to correlate with higher risk for future ASCVD include early menarche, adverse pregnancy outcomes (such as pre-eclampsia or preterm birth), and early natural or surgical menopause. In addition, certain conditions that are more common among women, including autoimmune diseases, history of chest irradiation, and certain chemotherapies, also need to be considered. Finally, risk assessment can be refined with subclinical disease imaging (coronary calcium score) if there remains uncertainty about clinical management with lipid-lowering therapies for primary prevention after inclusion of these risk enhancers. Risk assessment for ASCVD in women requires a personalized approach that incorporates sex-specific risk factors to guide primary prevention measures, such as lipid-lowering therapies. Coronary calcium score imaging may also help further refine risk assessment, but no clinical trials conducted to date have addressed this question.

2018 Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines: Synopsis of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety Cholesterol Guideline.

Description: In November 2018, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) released a new clinical practice guideline on cholesterol management. It was accompanied by a risk assessment report on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: A panel of experts free of recent and relevant industry-related conflicts was chosen to carry out systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined cardiovascular outcomes. High-quality observational studies were used for estimation of ASCVD risk. An independent panel systematically reviewed RCT evidence about the benefits and risks of adding nonstatin medications to statin therapy compared with receiving statin therapy alone in persons who have or are at high risk for ASCVD. Recommendation: The guideline endorses a heart-healthy lifestyle beginning in childhood to reduce lifetime risk for ASCVD. It contains several new features compared with the 2013 guideline. For secondary prevention, patients at very high risk may be candidates for adding nonstatin medications (ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors) to statin therapy. In primary prevention, a clinician-patient risk discussion is still strongly recommended before a decision is made about statin treatment. The AHA/ACC risk calculator first triages patients into 4 risk categories. Those at intermediate risk deserve a focused clinician-patient discussion before initiation of statin therapy. Among intermediate-risk patients, identification of risk-enhancing factors and coronary artery calcium testing can assist in the decision to use a statin. Compared with the 2013 guideline, the new guideline gives more attention to percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a treatment goal and to long-term monitoring of therapeutic efficacy. To simplify monitoring, nonfasting lipid measurements are allowed.

Differences in statin utilization and lipid lowering by race, ethnicity, and HIV status in a real-world cohort of persons with human immunodeficiency virus and uninfected persons.

BACKGROUND: Risks for cardiovascular diseases, including myocardial infarction and stroke, are elevated in people with HIV infection (PWH). However, no trials of statin utilization with clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been completed in PWH, and there are sparse real-world data regarding statin use and lipid-lowering effectiveness. We therefore used a unique cohort of PWH and uninfected controls to evaluate (1) differences in statin types used for PWH versus uninfected persons; (2) lipid lowering achieved by statin use for PWH versus uninfected persons; and (3) racial and ethnic disparities in appropriate statin use among PWH and uninfected persons. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 5,039 PWH and 10,011 uninfected demographically matched controls who received care at a large urban medical center between January 1, 2000, and May 17, 2017. Medication administration records, prescription data, and validated natural language processing algorithms were used to determine statin utilization. Statins were categorized by generic active ingredient name and intensity (high, moderate, or low). Lipid values collected in routine clinical care were available for analysis. The first set of analyses was restricted to PWH and uninfected matched controls taking statins and compared (1) differences in statin type and (2) difference in cholesterol levels after versus before statin initiation by HIV status. For the second set of analyses, we first used prevalent CVD risk factors to determine participants with statin indications and then determined how many of these participants were taking statins. We then compared statin utilization among persons with indications for statins by race/ethnic group for PWH and uninfected matched controls using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Among people prescribed statins, PWH were more likely than controls to have ever taken pravastatin (34.8% vs 12.3%, P < .001) or atorvastatin (72.2% vs 65.6%, P = .002) and less likely to have ever taken simvastatin (14.2% vs 39.5%, P < .001). Among PWH with indications for statin utilization, 55.7% of whites, 39.4% of blacks, and 45.8% of Hispanics were prescribed statins (P < .001). These differences in statin prescription by race/ethnicity remained significant after adjustment for demographics (including insurance status), cardiovascular risk factors, antiretroviral therapy use, HIV viremia, and CD4 count. These racial/ethnic disparities in statin utilization were less pronounced among uninfected persons. CONCLUSIONS: Among PWH with statin indication(s), blacks and Hispanics were less likely than whites to have been prescribed a statin. These racial/ethnic disparities were less pronounced among uninfected persons. There were significant differences in type of statin used for PWH compared to uninfected matched controls. Future efforts addressing disparities in CVD prevention among PWH are warranted.

Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading global cause of death, accounting for 17.3 million deaths per year. Preventive treatment that reduces CVD by even a small percentage can substantially reduce, nationally and globally, the number of people who develop CVD and the costs of caring for them. This American Heart Association presidential advisory on dietary fats and CVD reviews and discusses the scientific evidence, including the most recent studies, on the effects of dietary saturated fat intake and its replacement by other types of fats and carbohydrates on CVD. In summary, randomized controlled trials that lowered intake of dietary saturated fat and replaced it with polyunsaturated vegetable oil reduced CVD by ≈30%, similar to the reduction achieved by statin treatment. Prospective observational studies in many populations showed that lower intake of saturated fat coupled with higher intake of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat is associated with lower rates of CVD and of other major causes of death and all-cause mortality. In contrast, replacement of saturated fat with mostly refined carbohydrates and sugars is not associated with lower rates of CVD and did not reduce CVD in clinical trials. Replacement of saturated with unsaturated fats lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, a cause of atherosclerosis, linking biological evidence with incidence of CVD in populations and in clinical trials. Taking into consideration the totality of the scientific evidence, satisfying rigorous criteria for causality, we conclude strongly that lowering intake of saturated fat and replacing it with unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats, will lower the incidence of CVD. This recommended shift from saturated to unsaturated fats should occur simultaneously in an overall healthful dietary pattern such as DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) or the Mediterranean diet as emphasized by the 2013 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology lifestyle guidelines and the 2015 to 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

What to say and how to say it: effective communication for cardiovascular disease prevention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Current guidelines for cholesterol treatment emphasize the importance of engaging patients in a risk-benefit discussion prior to initiating statin therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Although current risk prediction algorithms are well defined, there is less data on how to communicate with patients about cardiovascular disease risk, benefits of treatment, and possible adverse effects. SUMMARY: We propose a four-part model for effective shared decision-making: 1) Assessing patient priorities, perceived risk, and prior experience with cardiovascular risk reduction; 2) Arriving at a recommendation for therapy based on the patient's risk of disease, guideline recommendations, new clinical trial data, and patient preferences; 3) Communicating this recommendation along with risks, benefits, and alternatives to therapy following best practices for discussing numeric risk; and 4) Arriving at a shared decision with the patient with ongoing reassessment as risk factors and patient priorities change.

Shared Decision-Making and Patient Empowerment in Preventive Cardiology.

Shared decision-making, central to evidence-based medicine and good patient care, begins and ends with the patient. It is the process by which a clinician and a patient jointly make a health decision after discussing options, potential benefits and harms, and considering the patient's values and preferences. Patient empowerment is crucial to shared decision-making and occurs when a patient accepts responsibility for his or her health. They can then learn to solve their own problems with information and support from professionals. Patient empowerment begins with the provider acknowledging that patients are ultimately in control of their care and aims to increase a patient's capacity to think critically and make autonomous, informed decisions about their health. This article explores the various components of shared decision-making in scenarios such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and diabetes. It explores barriers and the potential for improving medication adherence, disease awareness, and self-management of chronic disease.

The 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: a new paradigm supported by more evidence.

AIMS: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline was a major paradigm shift and heavily criticized by some experts. A better understanding of the methodology used to develop the guideline, the guideline recommendations, and the evidence supporting them addresses many of criticisms. METHODS AND RESULTS: An extensive body of evidence from randomized clinical trials supports the new risk-based approach. The emphasis is on the appropriate intensity of statin therapy in patients most likely to benefit. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines have taken a similar approach. Recent studies have found the 2013 guideline outperforms earlier cholesterol guidelines recommending low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment thresholds and targets. The 2013 cholesterol guideline better identifies high-risk patients with a greater burden of atherosclerosis and avoids treating those at lower risk with little atherosclerosis; its application would prevent up to 450 000 more atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events over 10 years. The 2013 cholesterol guideline also recommends regularly monitoring LDL-C levels to assess adherence to lifestyle and drug therapy, and adjusting treatment based on response to therapy and adverse events. Non-statins shown to reduce ASCVD events when added to statin therapy, and that have an acceptable margin of safety in randomized, controlled clinical trials, are preferred. Ezetimibe has now been shown to meet this standard. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of net benefit introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline identifies patients most likely to benefit from statin therapy to reduce ASCVD risk. Net benefit, incorporating the absolute ASCVD risk of a patient and the relative reduction in ASCVD risk based on the magnitude of LDL-C reduction from the addition of a non-statin, can be used when considering whether to add ezetimibe or another LDL-C lowering drug.