Is There a Role for Coronary Calcium in Patients With Diabetes?

In the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a significant portion of high-risk patients have diabetes. Two decades ago, patients with or without cardiovascular disease were identified as having coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equivalents because prospective studies showed that they were at risk for future CHD events equivalent to that of patients with established CHD. Thus, for patients with CHD, cholesterol guidelines recommended that patients with diabetes should be treated routinely with statins. However, recently, the treatment of diabetes has been greatly improved, and the risk for ASCVD has decreased. For this reason, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendations for routine use of statins in patients with diabetes. One of the major advances in the risk assessment for ASCVD is the introduction of coronary artery calcium measurement. This report will examine the role of coronary artery calcium scanning for the decision to initiate statin therapy in the primary prevention for patients with diabetes.

Statin therapy for primary prevention in men: What is the role for coronary artery calcium?

Current cholesterol guidelines for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) base statin treatment decisions on multiple risk factor algorithms (e.g., Pooled Cohort Equations [PCEs]). By available PCEs, most older middle-aged men are statin eligible. But several studies cast doubt on predictive accuracy of available PCEs for ASCVD risk assessment. Recent studies suggest that accuracy can be improved by measurement of coronary artery calcium (CAC). This method has the advantage of identifying men at low risk in whom statin therapy can be delayed for several years, provided they are monitored periodically for progression of CAC. Thus, there are two approaches to statin therapy in men ≥ 55 years: first all men could be treated routinely, or second, treatment can be based on the extent of coronary calcium. The latter could allow a sizable fraction of men to avoid treatment for several years or indefinitely. Whether with initial CAC scan or with periodic rescanning, a CAC score ≥ 100 Agatston units is high enough to warrant statin therapy. In otherwise high-risk men (e.g., diabetes, severe hypercholesterolemia, 10-year risk by PCE ≥ 20%), a statin is generally indicated without the need for CAC; but in special cases, CAC measurement may aid in treatment decisions.

Guidelines for the management of hyperlipidemia: How can clinicians effectively implement them?

Guidelines support lowering cholesterol to decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk across the entire lifespan with intensive lifestyle intervention, as well as statin and non-statin pharmacotherapy for those at highest risk. Modest improvements in the initiation, use, and adherence to statin therapy in patients with ASCVD have occurred over the past decades. However, studies continue to document a less than desired implementation of guidelines highlighting a substantial and persistent treatment gap. The success of implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers that exist throughout the healthcare delivery system. Further research is needed to comprehensively evaluate these barriers in order to develop appropriate and sustainable interventions to improve guideline implementation.

Statin Usage in Primary Prevention-Comparing the USPSTF Recommendations With the AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines.

This Editorial compares the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC)/multisociety guidelines on statin usage in primary prevention.

Statin therapy for primary prevention in women: What is the role for coronary artery calcium?

By current guidelines, statin treatment decisions depend on multiple risk factor algorithms (e.g., pooled cohort equations [PCEs]). By available PCEs most older middle-aged women are statin eligible. But several studies cast doubt on reliability of available PCEs for ASCVD risk assessment. An alternative method for risk assessment is a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. Many older women have zero CAC, which equates to low risk for ASCVD; these women can delay statin therapy for several years before re-scanning. When CAC is 1-99 Agatston units, risk is only borderline high and statin delay also is an option until re-scanning. When CAC is > 100 Agatston units, risk is high enough to warrant a statin. In most women, CAC is the best guide to treatment decisions. In high-risk women (e.g., diabetes and severe hypercholesterolemia), generally are indicated, but CAC can assist in risk assessment, but other risk factors also can aid in treatment decisions.

Managing Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Young Adults: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

There is a need to identify high-risk features that predict early-onset atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The authors provide insights to help clinicians identify and address high-risk conditions in the 20- to 39-year age range (young adults). These include tobacco use, elevated blood pressure/hypertension, family history of premature ASCVD, primary severe hypercholesterolemia such as familial hypercholesterolemia, diabetes with diabetes-specific risk-enhancing factors, or the presence of multiple other risk-enhancing factors, including in females, a history of pre-eclampsia or menopause under age 40. The authors update current thinking on lipid risk factors such as triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, or lipoprotein (a) that are useful in understanding an individual's long-term ASCVD risk. The authors review emerging strategies, such as coronary artery calcium and polygenic risk scores in this age group, that have potential clinical utility, but whose best use remains uncertain. Finally, the authors discuss both the obstacles and opportunities for addressing prevention in early adulthood.

Prevalence and significance of risk enhancing biomarkers in the United States population at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic disease.

BACKGROUND: Pooled cohort equations (PCEs) estimate 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in US adults. One use is to guide statin eligibility. However, PCEs risk estimate is inaccurate in some US subpopulations. OBJECTIVE: Recent cholesterol guidelines proposed addition of risk enhancing factors to improve risk assessment for selection of statin therapy. This study examines frequencies of several risk enhancing biomarkers in NHANES subjects at intermediate risk (7.5 -<20% 10-year risk for ASCVD) and considers how they may be used to better assess risk for individuals. METHODS: Prevalence of the following biomarkers were determined; elevations in apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins, i.e., LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) (160-189 mg/dL), non-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) (190-219 mg/dL), or total apolipoprotein B (apoB) (≥ 130 mg/dL), serum triglyceride (≥175 mg/dL), hemoglobin A1c (5.7-6.4%), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (2-10 mg/L), and waist circumference ≥ 102 cm, and abnormal estimated glomerular filtration rate (15 - ≤ 60 mg/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS: 25% of NHANES population had intermediate risk. In this subpopulation, 85% had ≥ 1 biomarkers-similarly in women and men-with a third having ≥3 abnormal markers. Frequencies were not age-related, except in those 40-49 years, in whom > 40% had ≥3 abnormal biomarkers. It made little difference whether LDL-C, non-HDL-C or apoB was used as the atherogenic lipoprotein. CONCLUSION: Three or more enhancing risk factors in intermediate risk subjects can complement PCE-estimated 10-year risk and guide the patient-provider discussion toward use of lipid-lowering medication. Future research is needed to integrate risk estimates by PCE and multiple risk enhancers.

High-Intensity Statins Benefit High-Risk Patients: Why and How to Do Better.

Review of the US and European literature indicates that most patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD are not treated with high-intensity statins, despite strong clinical-trial evidence of maximal statin benefit. High-intensity statins are recommended for 2 categories of patients: those with ASCVD (secondary prevention) and high-risk patients without clinical ASCVD. Most patients with ASCVD are candidates for high-intensity statins, with a goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction of 50% or greater. A subgroup of patients with ASCVD are at very high risk and can benefit by the addition of nonstatin drugs (ezetimibe with or without bile acid sequestrant or bempedoic acid and/or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor). High-risk primary prevention patients are those with severe hypercholesterolemia, diabetes with associated risk factors, and patients aged 40 to 75 years with a 10-year risk for ASCVD of 20% or greater. In patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% to less than 20%, coronary artery calcium scoring is an option; if the coronary artery calcium score is 300 or more Agatston units, the patient can be up-classified to high risk. If high-intensity statin treatment is not tolerated in high-risk patients, a reasonable approach is to combine a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe. In very high-risk patients, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels substantially and hence reduce risk as well.

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.

Coronary Artery Calcium: Where Do We Stand After Over 3 Decades?

In 2018, cardiovascular society cholesterol guidelines recommended the use of coronary artery calcium to guide statin therapy in patients 40-79 years of age who are at intermediate risk by multiple risk factor equations (ie, estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic disease of 7.5%-19.9% but in whom statin benefit is uncertain). Many such patients have no coronary calcium and remain at <5% risk over the next decade; hence, statin therapy can be delayed until a repeat calcium scan is conducted. Exceptions include patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and a strong family history of atherosclerotic disease. If coronary calcium equals 1-99 Agatston units, the 10-year risk is borderline (5% to <7.5%) and statin therapy is optional pending a repeat scan. If coronary calcium equals 100-299 Agatston units, the patient is clearly statin eligible (7.5% to <20% 10-year risk). And finally, if coronary calcium is ≥300 Agatston units, a patient is at high risk and is a candidate for high-intensity statins. Risk factor analysis combined judiciously with coronary calcium scanning offers the strongest evidence-based approach to use of statins in primary prevention.

Utility of metabolic syndrome as a risk enhancing factor in decision of statin use.

BACKGROUND: Statins effectively reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) when 10-year risk is ≥ 7.5%. In many patients at intermediate risk (7.5-<20% risk), there is uncertainty about reliability of risk assessment by current pooled cohort equations (PCE). A decision to initiate statin therapy is favored by several risk enhancing factors not employed in PCEs. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the scope of the metabolic syndrome, a risk enhancing factor, and its principal sequala, diabetes, in 26,796 US adults age 40-75 years from the NHANES survey data, 1999-2016. METHODS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome without diabetes (MetS+) and of diabetes (DM+) were determined for 10-year risk categories estimated to be low (<7.5%), intermediate (7.5% -< 20%) and high (≥20%). Data were weighted to account for complex study design. RESULTS: 90.4% of the population was free of ASCVD. In subjects projected to be at low risk by PCEs, MetS+ was present in 15.0% and 17.6% of women and men, respectively. MetS + increased to 30.6% of women and 29.6% of men at intermediate risk, and to 21.5% of women and 32.2% of men at high risk. In addition, DM+ was present in 6.1%/5.3% (F/M) of low risk individuals, 20.1%/14.8% (F/M) of intermediate risk subjects, and 44.3%/39.4% (F/M) of high-risk persons. Prevalence of both MetS+ and DM + rose progressively with age in women and men. CONCLUSIONS: MetS+ and DM + are common multiplex risk factors that predispose to higher lifetime risk and support statin therapy in patients at intermediate and high risk.

Chronic kidney disease and statin eligibility.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). American cardiovascular societies consider CKD a risk-enhancing factor that supports statin therapy in intermediate-risk patients aged 40-75 years. In contrast, European cardiovascular societies recommend statins for all middle-aged adults with CKD. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes lipid management guideline for CKD recommends statin therapy for all patients with CKD >50 years. Clinical implications for these differences have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: This study examines CKD prevalence and statin eligibility in non-ASCVD adults, representative of the US population, at 3 levels of 10-year risk of ASCVD estimated by pooled cohort equations. METHODS: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999-2016 weighted data were evaluated for CKD defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Overall prevalence of low, intermediate, and high 10-year risk for ASCVD was determined. RESULTS: A total of 92.5% of all participants had estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; 7.5% (confidence interval 6.9%, 8.1%) had CKD. Among participants with CKD, 46.3% had 10-year risk for ASCVD <7.5% (low risk); 31.7% had intermediate risk (7.5-< 20%), and 22.0% had high risk (≥20%). In participants with CKD, 62.5% were women. A total of 19.6% of all participants with CKD had diabetes. A total of 46.3% of participants with CKD at intermediate or high risk reported taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. CONCLUSION: A total of 46.3% of patients with CKD aged 40-75 years had 10-year risk <7.5% (low risk) and hence were statin eligible by European and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (>50 years) guidelines. US cardiovascular guidelines limit statin eligibility to intermediate- and high-risk CKD. Statin eligibility in lower-risk patients may be best determined by measuring coronary artery calcium.

Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990-2019: Update From the GBD 2019 Study.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), principally ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, are the leading cause of global mortality and a major contributor to disability. This paper reviews the magnitude of total CVD burden, including 13 underlying causes of cardiovascular death and 9 related risk factors, using estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019. GBD, an ongoing multinational collaboration to provide comparable and consistent estimates of population health over time, used all available population-level data sources on incidence, prevalence, case fatality, mortality, and health risks to produce estimates for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Prevalent cases of total CVD nearly doubled from 271 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 257 to 285 million) in 1990 to 523 million (95% UI: 497 to 550 million) in 2019, and the number of CVD deaths steadily increased from 12.1 million (95% UI:11.4 to 12.6 million) in 1990, reaching 18.6 million (95% UI: 17.1 to 19.7 million) in 2019. The global trends for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years of life lost also increased significantly, and years lived with disability doubled from 17.7 million (95% UI: 12.9 to 22.5 million) to 34.4 million (95% UI:24.9 to 43.6 million) over that period. The total number of DALYs due to IHD has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 182 million (95% UI: 170 to 194 million) DALYs, 9.14 million (95% UI: 8.40 to 9.74 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 197 million (95% UI: 178 to 220 million) prevalent cases of IHD in 2019. The total number of DALYs due to stroke has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 143 million (95% UI: 133 to 153 million) DALYs, 6.55 million (95% UI: 6.00 to 7.02 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 101 million (95% UI: 93.2 to 111 million) prevalent cases of stroke in 2019. Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of disease burden in the world. CVD burden continues its decades-long rise for almost all countries outside high-income countries, and alarmingly, the age-standardized rate of CVD has begun to rise in some locations where it was previously declining in high-income countries. There is an urgent need to focus on implementing existing cost-effective policies and interventions if the world is to meet the targets for Sustainable Development Goal 3 and achieve a 30% reduction in premature mortality due to noncommunicable diseases.

The 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guidelines on the Management of Blood Cholesterol in Diabetes.

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines recently published its 2018 recommendations on management of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in people with diabetes. For primary prevention, moderate-intensity statin therapy is recommended for those aged 40-75 years, with a preference for high-intensity statin treatment for older subjects and for those with higher estimated risk or risk-enhancing factors following a patient-clinician discussion. Statin therapy may be reasonable in adults <40 years or >75 years of age where there is less evidence for benefit. For people with diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended. The majority of these subjects have very high risk, and an LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL is recommended. If this target is not achieved, ezetimibe and/or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be added.

Temporal decline in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in subjects with diabetes mellitus without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) includes atherogenic cholesterol and low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Patients with diabetes frequently have elevations in non-HDL-C. OBJECTIVE: This study examines temporal trends in the levels of non-HDL-C in free-living subjects with diabetes but a negative history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted between 1999 and 2016 had data from 3,219 adults (aged 40-75 years) with diabetes. Temporal trends in changes in the distribution of total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), and HDL-C were evaluated. Data were weighted to account for complex survey design. RESULTS: Significant decreases were observed in non-HDL-C (20.1%; P < .0001) and total cholesterol (16.1%; P < .0001) levels between 1999 and 2016. No significant changes were noted in HDL-C levels. LDL-C was reduced by 29.6% in a subset of subjects. The reduction in non-HDL-C and LDL-C occurred simultaneously, with an increase of 4.4% of subjects per year taking cholesterol-lowering drugs and statins. In contrast, the fraction of subjects taking antihypertensives or hypoglycemia agents rose at a rate of 2.2% per year. There was also a significant trend for increases in weight gain (P ≤ .013). CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with diabetes, non-HDL-C levels have declined over time in parallel with reported increases in cholesterol-lowering drugs. Nonetheless, treatment targets for lipids in subjects with diabetes lag behind current recommendations. Reported intakes for antihypertensive agents and hypoglycemia agents were relatively high throughout the period of study, with little change over time. However, there was a trend for weight increase in diabetic subjects, which may offset some of the benefits of pharmacotherapy.

The 2018 AHA/ACC/Multi-Society Cholesterol guidelines: Looking at past, present and future.

The authors review more than three decades of progress in providing clinicians and patients with guidance on risk assessment, patient evaluation and cholesterol management. Beginning with the National Cholesterol Education Program's Initial Adult Treatment Panel report, the cholesterol guidelines increasingly reflect the progress made in understanding the benefits of improved lifestyle and nutrition to improve lipid profiles, major risk factors and reduce ASCVD risk. Moreover, they now provide qualitative and quantitative assessment tools to guide appropriate risk reduction LDL-C lowering therapy. Use of the Pooled Cohort Equations to determine Low, Borderline, Intermediate and High 10-year ASCVD risk is now joined by recognition of conditions and biomarkers that enhance ASCVD risk. This personalizes the risk discussion for the patient. An important addition is the selective use of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring to reclassify risk in patients at borderline or intermediate risk, but for whom a risk decision regarding statin therapy is uncertain. In secondary prevention, current guidelines provide criteria for determining a "very high" risk group in whom risk is especially high and in whom aggressive LDL-C lowering can be shown to provide increased absolute benefit. Current guidelines provide a comprehensive look at children and adolescents, young adults, elderly, women and issues specific to women through the life course. They provide guidance for those adults at risk due to severe hypercholesterolemia, persistent hypertriglyceridemia after secondary causes have been addressed, those with inflammatory disorders and HIV, those adults with chronic kidney disease, and those affected by issues of race/ethnicity. They conclude with a brief summary of recommendations emphasizing important concepts for providing safety with LDL-C lowering therapy. This combination of best external evidence and clinical expertise from the expert panel should provide a solid foundation for lipid management of patients at risk for or with clinical ASCVD.