Senses and meanings of primary health care academic visions in nursing / Sentidos y significados de las visiones académicas de la atención/cuidado primaria de salud en enfermería / Sentidos e significados das visões acadêmicas da atenção básica/cuidado em enfermagem

Introduction: Primary Health Care (PHC) has acquired different meanings for different people, at specific times and places, which poses important challenges for its understanding. Objective: To analyze the meaning(s) and sense(s) of Primary/Basic Health Care in the academic views on Nursing/Health in the context of undergraduate Nursing courses offered at two public Higher Education Institutions. Materials and methods: Qualitative study with an exploratory approach. Semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis were used as data collection techniques. Results: The senses/meanings of Primary Health Care converge with the population's gateway to the health system at the first care level and with the first contact of a person with the health service. However, it is still considered as a less important service within the care network. Conclusion: Primary Health Care means a relevant possibility for Nursing/Health care through health promotion and disease prevention actions, with a commitment to respond to most of the population's health needs.

Introducción: La Atención Primaria de Salud ha adquirido diferentes significados para diversas personas, en momentos y lugares específicos, lo cual plantea importantes retos para su entendimiento. Objetivo: Analizar los significados y sentidos de la Atención Primaria de Salud desde una visión académica en Enfermería y en el contexto de cursos de pregrado en Enfermería ofrecidos en dos Instituciones Públicas de Educación Superior. Materiales y métodos: Estudio cualitativo con un enfoque exploratorio, para la recolección de datos se emplearon entrevistas semiestructuradas y análisis documental de contenidos. Resultados: Los sentidos/significados de la Atención Primaria de la Salud convergen con el ingreso de la población al sistema de salud en el primer nivel de atención y la primera experiencia de la persona con el servicio de salud. Sin embargo, dicha Atención Primaria todavía se considera un servicio de baja importancia dentro de la red asistencial. Conclusión: La Atención Primaria de Salud representa una posibilidad relevante para el cuidado de Enfermería a través de acciones de promoción de la salud y prevención de enfermedades, que debe fortalecerse para responder la mayoría de las necesidades de salud de la población.

Introdução: A Atenção Primária à Saúde tem adquirido diferentes significados para diferentes pessoas, em momentos e locais específicos, o que coloca desafios importantes para a sua compreensão. Objetivo: Analisar os sentidos e significados da Atenção Primária à Saúde na perspectiva acadêmica em Enfermagem e no contexto dos cursos de graduação em Enfermagem oferecidos em duas Instituições de Ensino Superior Públicas. Materiais e métodos: Estudo qualitativo com abordagem exploratória, utilizou-se entrevistas semiestruturadas para coleta de dados e análise de conteúdo documental. Resultados: Os sentidos/significados da Atenção Primária à Saúde convergem com a entrada da população no sistema de saúde no primeiro nível de atenção e a primeira experiência da pessoa com o serviço de saúde. Contudo, a referida Atenção Básica ainda é considerada um serviço de baixa importância dentro da rede de saúde. Conclusão: A Atenção Primária à Saúde representa uma possibilidade relevante para o cuidado de Enfermagem por meio de ações de promoção da saúde e prevenção de doenças, que devem ser fortalecidas para responder à maioria das necessidades de saúde da população.

Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Interactions between antiepileptic drugs and direct oral anticoagulants for primary and secondary stroke prevention.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are the guideline-recommended therapy for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism. Since approximately 10% of patients using antiepileptic drugs (AED) also receive DOAC, aim of this review is to summarize data about drug-drug interactions (DDI) of DOAC with AED by using data from PubMed until December 2023. AREAS COVERED: Of 49 AED, only 16 have been investigated regarding DDI with DOAC by case reports or observational studies. No increased risk for stroke was reported only for topiramate, zonisamide, pregabalin, and gabapentin, whereas for the remaining 12 AED conflicting results regarding the risk for stroke and bleeding were found. Further 16 AED have the potential for pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic DDI, but no data regarding DOAC are available. For the remaining 17 AED it is unknown if they have DDI with DOAC. EXPERT OPINION: Knowledge about pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic DDI of AED and DOAC is limited and frequently restricted to in vitro and in vivo findings. Since no data about DDI with DOAC are available for 67% of AED and an increasing number of patients have a combined medication of DOAC and AED, there is an urgent need for research on this topic.

Pharmacist-Led Deprescribing of Aspirin in Older People in an Outpatient Setting.

Background In 2019, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association updated their joint guidelines stating low-dose aspirin should not be used on a routine basis for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) among people older than 70 years of age because of increased bleeding risk.1 In addition to these updated guidelines, a statement released by the US Preventive Services Task Force in April 2022 recommends against the initiation of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people 60 years of age or older.² Despite these updated recommendations, aspirin continues to be a common medication older patients take, providing an opportunity for a clinical pharmacist deprescribing intervention. Objective To identify the role of a pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing intervention within a safety-net health system in the outpatient setting. Methods This project included patients 70 years of age and older who had aspirin listed as an active medication without documented ASCVD. This project assessed aspirin deprescribing rates, time spent on pharmacist outreach, and reasons for patient and/or provider refusal to discontinue aspirin. Results One hundred thirty-one eligible patients were contacted. Of those, 78 (60%) patients discontinued aspirin after speaking with the pharmacist, and 8 patients discontinued aspirin after a clinical pharmacist recommendation to the patient's primary care provider (PCP). The median time spent on outreach was approximately eight minutes. Of the 6 patients who consented to the project but declined to discontinue aspirin therapy based on pharmacist intervention, 5 preferred to discuss the issue with their PCP, while 1 patient was told by an outside provider to take aspirin. Conclusion Results indicate the successful impact a clinical pharmacist may have in deprescribing aspirin in a high-risk population. These data may also suggest that an active and intentional approach to deprescribing is likely to be more effective than a written recommendation to providers.

Evaluation of Aspirin Prescribing and Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Adults 60 Years of Age and Older in a Large, Academic Health System.

Background National guidelines no longer recommend adults 60 years of age and older to begin treatment with low-dose daily aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to a lack of proven net benefit and a higher risk of bleeding. Objective The objective of this cross-sectional retrospective analysis was to evaluate the appropriateness of low-dose aspirin prescribing and subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding in older persons receiving primary care in a large academic health system. Setting Large, academic health system within Colorado. Patients Patients with an active order for daily low-dose aspirin as of July 1, 2021, were assessed for appropriateness based on indication (primary vs secondary prevention) and use of a concomitant proton-pump inhibitor (PPI). Incident gastrointestinal bleeds (GIBs) in the subsequent 12 months and GIB risk factors were also evaluated. Results A total of 19,525 patients were included in the analysis. Eighty-nine percent of patients identified as White and 54% identified as male. Of the total cohort, 44% had CVD and 19% were co-prescribed a PPI. GIB occurred in 247 patients (1.27%) within the subsequent year. Risk factors significantly associated with a GIB within 1 year included: history of GIB, history of peptic ulcer disease, other esophageal issue (esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, Mallory Weiss tears, etc.), 75 years of age or older, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Conclusion This evaluation found that many older persons at this institution may be inappropriately prescribed aspirin, providing opportunities for pharmacists to improve medication safety by deprescribing aspirin among primary prevention patients or potentially co-prescribing a PPI in secondary prevention patients.

Implementation of a Pharmacist-Driven Aspirin Deprescribing Protocol Among Older Veterans in a Primary Care Setting.

Background Recent cardiovascular guideline updates recommend against the use of aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in older people. However, aspirin use remains common in this population. Objective To implement and evaluate the benefit of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol compared with primary care provider (PCP) education-only in a primary care setting. Methods This prospective, cohort project targeted deprescribing for patients prescribed aspirin for primary prevention of ASCVD. Patients were included if they received primary care services at the Milwaukee Veterans Health Administration Medical Center (VHA) and were 70 years of age or older. Criteria for exclusion were aspirin obtained outside the VHA system, aspirin prescribed for a non-ASCVD-related condition, and/or a history of ASCVD. Active deprescribing by pharmacists and PCP education took place in the intervention group with PCP education only in the standard-of-care group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had aspirin deprescribed in each group. Secondary outcomes included patient acceptability of the intervention and barriers to implementation. Results A total of 520 patients were prescribed aspirin in the intervention group versus 417 in the education-only group. Sixty-five patients met intervention criteria and were contacted for aspirin deprescribing. The pharmacist-led active deprescribing group led to a higher rate of aspirin deprescriptions versus the education-only group (54% vs 18%; P = 0.0001) for patients who met criteria. Conclusion A pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing protocol within a primary care setting significantly decreased the number of aspirin prescriptions compared with PCP education only.

Reducing the risks when using benzodiazepines to treat insomnia: A public health approach.

Benzodiazepines are widely used but can cause considerable harm, including sedation, addiction, falls, fractures, and cognitive impairment, especially with long-term use and in elderly patients. The authors propose a public health approach to reduce the potential for harm when using benzodiazepines to treat insomnia. Primary prevention involves judicious patient selection and patient education. Secondary prevention requires keeping the duration of use as short as possible according to guidelines. Tertiary prevention, for patients who have been taking a benzodiazepine for a long time, uses shared decision-making to introduce a gradual and carefully monitored taper.

Effects on physical activity, physical fitness and well-being in a 36-months randomized controlled study, comparing a multimodal hospital-based intervention programme for primary cardiovascular prevention with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and primary prevention efforts are poorly developed in people at high cardiovascular risk. On this background, we performed the Hjerteløftet Study and demonstrated that participation over 36 months in a multimodal primary prevention programme, significantly reduced validated cardiovascular risk scores. In the current substudy we aimed to further explore several elements and effects following the intervention programme. METHODS: A random sample from the original Hjerteløftet Study was included for further examinations (n = 255, 40% women), and these patients were already randomized to an intervention group (IG) (n = 127), or a control group (CG) (n = 128). We compared changes from baseline to 36-months follow-up in physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological well-being (WHO-5), cardiovascular medication use, smoking habits, and cardiometabolic risk factors (blood pressure, lipids, blood glucose, HbA1c, Apolipoprotein A-I, Apolipoprotein B and high-sensitive C-reactive protein). RESULTS: Self-reported physical activity increased significantly with absolute difference in mean delta Physical Activity Index score in the IG compared to the CG: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.70, p = 0.028 (ANCOVA). There were no corresponding differences in cardiorespiratory fitness. The participation resulted in psychological well-being improvement in both groups with a larger increase in the IG compared to the CG. The mean difference in delta WHO-5 score was 5.06, 95% CI: 0.68 to 9.45, p = 0.024, and 3.28, 95% CI: -0.69 to 5.25, p = 0.104 when controlled for baseline values (ANCOVA). The use of antihypertensive medication increased significantly more in the CG (p = 0.044). Only minor, nonsignificant changes were observed for traditional risk factors and cardiometabolic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the Hjerteløftet Study intervention programme resulted in an improved physical activity level, but without changing cardiorespiratory fitness. Participation in the programme also tended to improve psychological well-being, possibly related to increased physical activity, less smoking and less use of cardiovascular medication. Concerning the metabolic status, no major differences were observed, but minor changes may have been concealed by a larger increase in cardiovascular medication use in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01741428), 04/12/2012.

Towards an Electronic Health Prevention Record Based on HL7 FHIR and the OMOP Common Data Model.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of all recorded deaths in Austria are due to behavioral risks. These risks could be avoided with appropriate measures. OBJECTIVES: Extension of the concept of EHR and EMR to an electronic prevention record, focusing on primary and secondary prevention. METHODS: The concept of a structured prevention pathway, based on the principles of P4 Medicine, was developed for a multidisciplinary prevention network. An IT infrastructure based on HL7 FHIR and the OHDSI OMOP common data model was designed. RESULTS: An IT solution supporting a structured and modular prevention pathway was conceptualized. It contained a personalized management of prevention, risk assessment, diagnostic and preventive measures supported by a modular, interoperable IT infrastructure including a health app, prevention record web-service, decision support modules and a smart prevention registry, separating primary and secondary use of data. CONCLUSION: A concept was created on how an electronic health prevention record based on HL7 FHIR and the OMOP common data model can be implemented.

De-imFAR phase II project: a study protocol for a cluster randomised implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies to reduce low-value statin prescribing in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of statins and foster healthy lifestyle promotion in cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention in low-risk patients. To this end, we will compare the effectiveness and feasibility of several de-implementation strategies developed following the structured design process of the Behaviour Change Wheel targeting key determinants of the clinical decision-making process in CVD prevention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised implementation trial, with an additional control group, will be launched, involving family physicians (FPs) from 13 Integrated Healthcare Organisations (IHOs) of Osakidetza-Basque Health Service with non-zero incidence rates of PIP of statins in 2021. All FPs will be exposed to a non-reflective decision assistance strategy based on reminders and decision support tools. Additionally, FPs from two of the IHOs will be randomly assigned to one of two increasingly intensive de-implementation strategies: adding a decision information strategy based on knowledge dissemination and a reflective decision structure strategy through audit/feedback. The target population comprises women aged 45-74 years and men aged 40-74 years with moderately elevated cholesterol levels but no diagnosed CVD and low cardiovascular risk (REGICOR<7.5%), who attend at least one appointment with any of the participating FPs (May 2022-May 2023), and will be followed until May 2024. We use the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate outcomes. The main outcome will be the change in the incidence rate of PIP of statins and healthy lifestyle counselling in the study population 12 and 24 months after FPs' exposure to the strategies. Moreover, FPs' perception of their feasibility and acceptability, and patient experience regarding the quality of care received will be evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Basque Country Clinical Research Ethics Committee and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04022850). Results will be disseminated in scientific peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04022850.

Impact of preventive substrate catheter ablation on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interventions in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and infarct-related coronary chronic total occlusion.

AIMS: Primary prevention patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and chronic total occlusion of an infarct-related coronary artery (CTO) are at a particularly high risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy occurrence. The trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of preventive CTO-related substrate ablation strategy in ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PREVENTIVE VT study was a prospective, multicentre, randomized trial including ischaemic patients with ejection fraction ≤40%, no documented ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), and evidence of scar related to the coronary CTO. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a preventive substrate ablation before ICD implantation or standard therapy with ICD implantation only. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate ICD therapy or unplanned hospitalization for VAs. Secondary outcomes included the primary outcome's components, the incidence of appropriate ICD therapies, cardiac hospitalization, electrical storm, and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Sixty patients were included in the study. During the mean follow-up of 44.7 ± 20.7 months, the primary outcome occurred in 5 (16.7%) patients undergoing preventive substrate ablation and in 13 (43.3%) patients receiving only ICD [hazard ratio (HR): 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-0.94; P = 0.037]. Patients in the preventive ablation group also had fewer appropriate ICD therapies (P = 0.039) and the electrical storms (Log-rank: P = 0.01). While preventive ablation also reduced cardiac hospitalizations (P = 0.006), it had no significant impact on CV mortality (P = 0.151). CONCLUSION: Preventive ablation of the coronary CTO-related substrate in patients undergoing primary ICD implantation is associated with the reduced risk of appropriate ICD therapy or unplanned hospitalization due to VAs.

Effect of bempedoic acid on mortality and cardiovascular events in primary and secondary prevention: A post-hoc analysis of the CLEAR-outcomes trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of bempedoic acid on mortality in the secondary prevention setting have not been examined. METHODS: We used data from the overall and primary prevention reports of CLEAR - Outcomes to reconstruct data for the secondary prevention population. A Bayesian analyses was employed to calculate the posterior probability of benefit or harm for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative effect sizes are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI), which represent the intervals that true effect sizes are expected to fall in with 95% probability, given the priors and model. RESULTS: In primary prevention, the posterior probability of bempedoic acid decreasing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was 99.4% (RR: 0.70; 95% CrI: 0.51 to 0.92) and 99.7% (RR: 0.58; 95% CrI: 0.38 to 0.86) respectively. In secondary prevention, the posterior probability of bempedoic acid increasing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was 96.6% (RR: 1.15; 95% CrI: 0.99 to 1.33) and 97.2% (RR: 1.21; 95% CrI: 1.00 to 1.45) respectively. The probability of bemepdoic acid reducing MACE in the primary and secondary prevention settings was 99.9% (RR: 0.70; 95% CrI: 0.54 to 0.88) and 95.8% (RR: 0.92; 95% CrI: 0.84 to 1.01) respectively. CONCLUSION: In contrast to its effect in the primary prevention subgroup of CLEAR - Outcomes, bempedoic acid resulted in a more modest MACE reduction and a potential increase in mortality in the secondary prevention subgroup. Whether these findings represent true treatment effect heterogeneity or the play of chance requires further evidence.

Achievement of Primary Prevention Cardiometabolic Targets in Women with HIV: An Urgent Call to Action to Pursue Cardiovascular Health.

BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic health has become crucial, especially for women with HIV (WWH). We assessed the achievement of targets for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes (H/Dy/DT) in primary prevention in a WWH cohort. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis including all WWH in our clinic, excluding those who had a myocardial infarction. H/Dy/DT achievement was assessed by both EACS guidelines and individual cardiovascular risk, CVR (measured by ESC calculator), using logistic regression to evaluate differences in H/Dy/DT achievement between migrant and Italian women. RESULTS: We included 292 WWH, 55.5% Italian and 44.5% migrant women; the median age was 50 (IQR:42-58) years, 94.5% had undetectable HIV-RNA, 55.1% had a high level of education, 27.1% were smokers, and 19.2% did regularly physical exercise. Overall, 76%, 19%, and 5% of women presented a low, a high, and a very high CVR, respectively. Among Italians, 28.4% and 6.2% women presented a high and a very high CVR, respectively. Considering migrants, 7.7% and 3.8% women presented a high and a very high CVR, respectively. Overall, among migrant women, those with a high CVR were more likely to be not at target than those with a low risk (especially for LDL-c and blood pressure among people on treatment), despite the fact that we did not detect a statistically significant difference. By contrast, migrants were more likely to achieve glycemic targets than Italians (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: H/Dy/DT target achievement is suboptimal, especially in migrants. A more aggressive pharmacological treatment, also assessing adherence to medical prescriptions, and promotion of healthy lifestyle should be urgently implemented, possibly redrawing the current model of care.

European and US Guideline-Based Statin Eligibility, Genetically Predicted Coronary Artery Disease, and the Risk of Major Coronary Events.

BACKGROUND: A study was designed to investigate whether the coronary artery disease polygenic risk score (CAD-PRS) may guide lipid-lowering treatment initiation as well as deferral in primary prevention beyond established clinical risk scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants were 311 799 individuals from the UK Biobank free of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and lipid-lowering treatment at baseline. Participants were categorized as statin indicated, statin indication unclear, or statin not indicated as defined by the European and US guidelines on statin use. For a median of 11.9 (11.2-12.6) years, 8196 major coronary events developed. CAD-PRS added to European-Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (European-SCORE2) and US-Pooled Cohort Equation (US-PCE) identified 18% and 12% of statin-indication-unclear individuals whose risk of major coronary events were the same as or higher than the average risk of statin-indicated individuals and 16% and 12% of statin-indicated individuals whose major coronary event risks were the same as or lower than the average risk of statin-indication-unclear individuals. For major coronary and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, CAD-PRS improved C-statistics greater among statin-indicated or statin-indication-unclear than statin-not-indicated individuals. For atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, CAD-PRS added to the European evaluation and US equation resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 13.6% (95% CI, 11.8-15.5) and 14.7% (95% CI, 13.1-16.3) among statin-indicated, 10.8% (95% CI, 9.6-12.0) and 15.3% (95% CI, 13.2-17.5) among statin-indication-unclear, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.6-1.3) and 3.6% (95% CI, 3.0-4.2) among statin-not-indicated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: CAD-PRS may guide statin initiation as well as deferral among statin-indication-unclear or statin-indicated individuals as defined by the European and US guidelines. CAD-PRS had little clinical utility among statin-not-indicated individuals.

2023 Australian guideline for assessing and managing cardiovascular disease risk.

INTRODUCTION: The 2023 Australian guideline for assessing and managing cardiovascular disease risk provides updated evidence-based recommendations for the clinical assessment and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for primary prevention. It includes the new Australian CVD risk calculator (Aus CVD Risk Calculator), based on an equation developed from a large New Zealand cohort study, customised and recalibrated for the Australian population. The new guideline replaces the 2012 guideline that recommended CVD risk assessment using the Framingham risk equation. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The new guideline recommends CVD risk assessment in people without known CVD: all people aged 45-79 years, people with diabetes from 35 years, and First Nations people from 30 years. The new Aus CVD Risk Calculator should be used to estimate and categorise CVD risk into low (< 5% risk over five years), intermediate (5% to < 10% risk over five years) or high risk (≥ 10% over five years). The following reclassification factors may be applied to recategorise calculated risk to improve accuracy of risk prediction, particularly in individuals close to a risk threshold: Indigenous status/ethnicity, estimated glomerular filtration rate, urine albumin to creatinine ratio measurements, severe mental illness, coronary artery calcium score and family history of premature CVD. A variety of communication formats is available to communicate CVD risk to help enable shared decision making. Healthy lifestyle modification, including smoking cessation, nutrition, physical activity and limiting alcohol, is encouraged for all individuals. Blood pressure-lowering and lipid-modifying pharmacotherapies should be prescribed for high risk and considered for intermediate risk individuals, unless contraindicated or clinically inappropriate. Reassessment of CVD risk should be considered within five years for individuals at low risk and within two years for those with intermediate risk. Reassessment of CVD risk is not recommended for individuals at high risk. CHANGES IN ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The updated guideline recommends assessment over a broader age range and uses the Aus CVD Risk Calculator, which replaces the previous Framingham-based equation. It incorporates new variables: social disadvantage, diabetes-specific risk markers, diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and use of blood pressure-lowering and lipid-modifying therapies. Reclassification factors are also a new addition. Updated risk categories and thresholds are based on the new Aus CVD Risk Calculator. The proportion of the population in the high risk category (≥ 10% over five years) is likely to be broadly comparable to more than 15% risk from the Framingham-based equation. The full guideline and Aus CVD Risk Calculator can be accessed at www.cvdcheck.org.au.