Mobile health apps for cardiovascular risk assessment: a systematic review.

Introduction: mHealth apps (MHA) are emerging as promising tools for cardiovascular risk assessment, but few meet the standards required for clinical use. We aim to evaluate the quality and functionality of mHealth apps for cardiovascular risk assessment by healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MHA for cardiovascular risk assessment in the Apple Store, Play Store, and Microsoft Store until August 2023. Our eligibility criteria were based on the 2021 European Society Cardiology Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice, the Framingham Risk Score, and the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease score. Our protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. To assess quality, we used the validated Mobile Apps Rating Scale (MARS) score, which includes 19 items across four objective scales (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality) and one additional subjective scale. For functionality evaluation, we used the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics functionality scale. We performed data synthesis by generating descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 18 MHA were included in the review. The most common scores used were the Framingham score, ASCVD score, and Score 2. Only six apps achieved an overall score of 4 or greater in the MARS evaluation. The MHA with the highest MARS score was ESC CVD Risk Calculation (5 points), followed by ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus (4.9 points). In the IMS scale, four MHA had a high functionality score: ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus (5 points), ESC CVD Risk Calculation (5 points), MDCalc Medical Calculator (4 points), and Calculate by QsMD (4 points). Discussion: A gap exists in the availability of high-quality MHA designed for healthcare professionals to facilitate shared decision-making in cardiovascular risk assessment. Systematic Review Registration: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, identifier CRD42023453807.

Mipomersen in Familial Hypercholesterolemia: An Update on Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant condition that leads to significantly elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease. Mipomersen is an antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor targeted to apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100) mRNA that is administered via subcutaneous injection. Once administered, mipomersen causes selective degradation of the apoB-100 mRNA and inhibition of protein translation. This ultimately results in substantial reductions in LDL-C and other lipoprotein levels. Mipomersen is approved for the treatment of homozygous FH. In this review, we discuss its mechanism, current evidence, limitations of use including adverse events, and impact on health-related quality of life.

Cardiovascular Disease Risk-Based Statin Utilization and Associated Outcomes in a Primary Prevention Cohort: Insights From a Large Health Care Network.

BACKGROUND: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend using the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk to guide statin therapy for primary prevention. Real-world data on adherence and consequences of nonadherence to the guidelines in primary are limited. We investigated the guideline-directed statin intensity (GDSI) and associated outcomes in a large health care system, stratified by ASCVD risk. METHODS: Statin prescription in patients without coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or ischemic stroke were evaluated within a large health care network (2013-2017) using electronic medical health records. Patient categories constructed by the 10-year ASCVD risk were borderline (5%-7.4%), intermediate (7.5%-19.9%), or high (≥20%). The GDSI (before time of first event) was defined as none or any intensity for borderline, and at least moderate for intermediate and high-risk groups. Mean (±SD) time to start/change to GDSI from first interaction in health care and incident rates (per 1000 person-years) for each outcome were calculated. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios for incident ASCVD and mortality across risk categories stratified by statin utilization. RESULTS: Among 282 298 patients (mean age ≈50 years), 29 134 (10.3%), 63 299 (22.4%), and 26 687 (9.5%) were categorized as borderline, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. Among intermediate and high-risk categories, 27 358 (43%) and 8300 (31%) patients did not receive any statin, respectively. Only 17 519 (65.6%) high-risk patients who were prescribed a statin received GDSI. The mean time to GDSI was ≈2 years among the intermediate and high-risk groups. At a median follow-up of 6 years, there was a graded increase in risk of ASCVD events in intermediate risk (hazard ratio=1.15 [1.07-1.24]) and high risk (hazard ratio=1.27 [1.17-1.37]) when comparing no statin use with GDSI therapy. Similarly, mortality risk among intermediate and high-risk groups was higher in no statin use versus GDSI. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world primary prevention cohort, over one-third of statin-eligible patients were not prescribed statin therapy. Among those receiving a statin, mean time to GDSI was ≈2 years. The consequences of nonadherence to guidelines are illustrated by greater incident ASCVD and mortality events. Further research can develop and optimize health care system strategies for primary prevention.