Patterns of Lipid Lowering Therapy Use Among Older Adults in a Managed Care Advantage Plan in the United States.

Background: The prevalence of cardiovascular events is increasing. There are many new lipids lowering therapies available in recent years. Increased evidence through literature and guidelines suggests that the use of lipid lowering therapy (LLT) benefits patients who are at risk for cardiovascular events.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the current LLT use as well as patterns of treatment modification among adults ≥ 65 years.Methods: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data between January 2016 and May 2018 was conducted. Patients with a LLT refill and continuous enrollment during 1-year prior and 1-year follow-up were identified. The treatment episodes captured were interruption of therapy, intensity changes, dose changes, treatment augmentation, switching, and discontinuation. An analysis of treatment patterns among patients ≥75 years was also performed.Results: The study included 14,360 patients with a LLT of which 99% of patients were on statins as monotherapy or combination. Overall non-statin therapy use either as monotherapy or combination was 2.1%. There were significant differences among new initiators and existing users of therapy. Among prevalent users 57.4% had no changes in the follow-up period, 13.6% interrupted therapy, and 6.6% discontinued. Among new users, 47.9% patients had interrupted therapy, 25% had no changes, and 21.9% discontinued therapy.Conclusion: Most patients were on monotherapy and statins with low non-statin use. The new users among them were more likely to discontinue and interrupt therapy, highlighting the limitations and issues that older patients face that need to increase adherence.

Social Determinants of Health and Comorbidities Among Individuals with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

Individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) often have a high burden of comorbidities. Social determinants of health (SDOH) may complicate adherence to treatment in these patients. This study assessed the association of comorbidities and SDOH among individuals with ASCVD. Cross-sectional data from the 2016 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a nationally representative US telephone-based survey of adults ages ≥18 years, were used. Cardiovascular comorbidities included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, current cigarette smoking, and chronic kidney disease. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, arthritis, cancer, and depression. SDOH associated with being at or above the 75th percentile of comorbidity burden were analyzed using multivariable adjusted logistic regression models. The study population included 387,044 individuals, 9% of whom had ASCVD. The mean (SD) numbers of total, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular comorbidities were 1.97 (1.27), 1.28 (0.74), 0.69 (0.91) among those without ASCVD and 3.28 (1.62), 1.73 (0.91), and 1.54 (1.22) among those with ASCVD, respectively (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Female gender, household income ≤$75,000, being unemployed, and difficulty accessing health care were significantly associated with a higher burden of comorbidities among those with ASCVD. The mean (SD) numbers of comorbidities for those with 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 of the aforementioned SDOH were 2.89 (1.45), 2.86 (1.47), 3.39 (1.58), and 4.01 (1.73), respectively (P < 0.001). Among persons with ASCVD, the burden of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities is directly proportional to SDOH in any given individual. Clinicians should address SDOH when managing high-risk individuals.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease risk reduction: Putting evidence in context.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (U.S.) and incurs significant cost to the healthcare system. Management of cholesterol remains central for ASCVD prevention and has been the focus of multiple national guidelines. In this review, we compare the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Cholesterol guidelines. We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We discuss why the VA/DoD and AHA/ACC may have reached different conclusions on these key issues.

Is There Still a Role for Aspirin in Primary Prevention in Women in 2020?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Aspirin's place in primary prevention for females has not been well delineated and has been under increased scrutiny in light of recent literature and guideline recommendations. The purpose of this review is to discuss current literature reviewing aspirin use for primary prevention in women and to discuss when use is appropriate. RECENT FINDINGS: The Women's Health Study found no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in women randomized to aspirin vs. placebo, though a significant reduction was observed in women ≥ 65 years. More recent literature evaluated outcomes for primary prevention use in patients at increased cardiovascular risk, patients with diabetes, and patients who are elderly. These trials found either no benefit in MACE outcomes or a slight benefit accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding. Furthermore, no difference in outcomes were found in subgroup analyses comparing females receiving aspirin vs. placebo or comparing events in males vs. females. With improvements in risk factor reduction, such as blood pressure control, statin use, diabetes management, and smoking cessation, the role of aspirin for primary prevention in women is still uncertain. Aspirin use for primary prevention in females has failed to show a clear benefit except in women ≥ 65 years old, with a potential increase in bleeding events. An effort to better study aspirin in female patients would allow for better identification of women who would or would not benefit from therapy.

Deprescribing in Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease.

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.