The Impact of an Electronic Best Practice Advisory on Patients' Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Risk Profile.

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity (PA) is a component of cardiovascular health and is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, only about half of US adults achieved the current PA recommendations. OBJECTIVE: The study purpose was to implement PA counseling using a clinical decision support tool in a preventive cardiology clinic and to assess changes in CVD risk factors in a sample of patients enrolled over 12 weeks of PA monitoring. METHODS: This intervention, piloted for 1 year, had 3 components embedded in the electronic health record: assessment of patients' PA, an electronic prompt for providers to counsel patients reporting low PA, and patient monitoring using a Fitbit. Cardiovascular disease risk factors included PA (self-report and Fitbit), body mass index, blood pressure, lipids, and cardiorespiratory fitness assessed with the 6-minute walk test. Depression and quality of life were also assessed. Paired t tests assessed changes in CVD risk. RESULTS: The sample who enrolled in the remote patient monitoring (n = 59) were primarily female (51%), White adults (76%) with a mean age of 61.13 ± 11.6 years. Self-reported PA significantly improved over 12 weeks (P = .005), but not Fitbit steps (P = .07). There was a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (469 ± 108 vs 494 ± 132 m, P = .0034), and 23 participants (42%) improved at least 25 m, signifying a clinically meaningful improvement. Only 4 participants were lost to follow-up over 12 weeks of monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Patients may need more frequent reminders to be active after an initial counseling session, perhaps getting automated messages based on their step counts syncing to their electronic health record.

Preclinical development and phase 1 trial of a novel siRNA targeting lipoprotein(a).

Compelling evidence supports a causal role for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in cardiovascular disease. No pharmacotherapies directly targeting Lp(a) are currently available for clinical use. Here we report the discovery and development of olpasiran, a first-in-class, synthetic, double-stranded, N-acetylgalactosamine-conjugated small interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to directly inhibit LPA messenger RNA translation in hepatocytes and potently reduce plasma Lp(a) concentration. Olpasiran reduced Lp(a) concentrations in transgenic mice and cynomolgus monkeys in a dose-responsive manner, achieving up to over 80% reduction from baseline for 5-8 weeks after administration of a single dose. In a phase 1 dose-escalation trial of olpasiran (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03626662 ), the primary outcome was safety and tolerability, and the secondary outcomes were the change in Lp(a) concentrations and olpasiran pharmacokinetic parameters. Participants tolerated single doses of olpasiran well and experienced a 71-97% reduction in Lp(a) concentration with effects persisting for several months after administration of doses of 9 mg or higher. Serum concentrations of olpasiran increased approximately dose proportionally. Collectively, these results validate the approach of using hepatocyte-targeted siRNA to potently lower Lp(a) in individuals with elevated plasma Lp(a) concentration.

Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Given rapid advancements in medical science, it is often challenging for the busy clinician to remain up-to-date on the fundamental and multifaceted aspects of preventive cardiology and maintain awareness of the latest guidelines applicable to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. The "American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update" is a summary document (updated yearly) regarding CVD risk factors. This "ASPC Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update" summary document reflects the perspective of the section authors regarding ten things to know about ten sentinel CVD risk factors. It also includes quick access to sentinel references (applicable guidelines and select reviews) for each CVD risk factor section. The ten CVD risk factors include unhealthful nutrition, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, obesity, considerations of select populations (older age, race/ethnicity, and sex differences), thrombosis/smoking, kidney dysfunction and genetics/familial hypercholesterolemia. For the individual patient, other CVD risk factors may be relevant, beyond the CVD risk factors discussed here. However, it is the intent of the "ASPC Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update" to provide a succinct overview of things to know about ten common CVD risk factors applicable to preventive cardiology.

Migraine Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Contraindications: An Analysis of Real-World Claims Data.

INTRODUCTION: Triptans, the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine attacks are, per FDA labeling, contraindicated in cardiovascular (CV) disease patients and have warnings and precautions for those with CV risk factors. METHODS: Headache specialists, cardiologists, and health economics and outcomes researchers convened to identify diagnostic codes for: (1) CV diseases contraindicating triptans based on FDA labeling; (2) conditions comprising "other significant underlying CV disease"; and (3) CV risk factors included as warnings and precautions for triptans. A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of commercially insured adult US migraine patients in the 2017 Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart (CDM) and the 2017 IBM® Watson Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims database was used to estimate the proportion of migraine patients with CV contraindications and warnings and precautions to triptans. RESULTS: Of the 56,662 migraine patients analyzed from Optum CDM, 13.5% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in triptan labeling and an additional 8.5% had ≥1 "other CV disease" judged by the panel to constitute a "significant underlying CV disease" (total: 22.0% migraine patients). Of 176 724 migraine patients analyzed from MarketScan, 12.2% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in the labeling and an additional 8.0% had ≥1 "other significant underlying CV disease" (total: 20.2% of migraine patients). An additional 25.4% and 25.1% of migraine patients had ≥2 CV risk factors in Optum CDM and MarketScan. In total, 47.4% and 45.3% of migraine patients in both databases had a CV disease specified as a contraindication, an "other CV disease" endorsed as significant, or ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of more than 230,000 people with migraine showed that ≥20% of commercially insured US migraine patients have a CV condition that specifically contraindicates triptan treatment, and an additional 25% have ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.

The Changing Landscape of Diabetes Therapy for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause of death in T2D. Despite improved risk factor control, however, adults with T2D continue to experience substantial excess CVD risk. Until recently, however, improved glycemic control has not been associated with robust macrovascular benefit. The advent of 2 new classes of antihyperglycemic agents, the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and their respective large cardiovascular outcome trials, has led to a paradigm shift in how cardiologists and heath care practitioners conceptualize T2D treatment. Herein, the authors review the recent trial evidence, the potential mechanisms of action of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, safety concerns, and their use for the primary prevention of CVD as well as in diabetic patients with impaired renal function and heart failure.

Investigation of Motivational Interviewing and Prevention Consults to Achieve Cardiovascular Targets (IMPACT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing cardiovascular (CV) procedures often have suboptimal CV risk factor control and may benefit from strategies targeting healthy lifestyle behaviors and education. Implementation of prevention strategies may be particularly effective at this point of heightened motivation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, pilot study was conducted in 400 patients undergoing a nonurgent CV procedure (cardiac catheterization ± revascularization) to evaluate the impact of different prevention strategies. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to usual care (UC; group A, n = 134), in-hospital CV prevention consult (PC; group B, n = 130), or PC plus behavioral intervention program (telephone-based motivational interviewing and optional tailored text messages) (group C, n = 133). The primary end point was the Δ change in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) from baseline to 6 month. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.6 ± 10.8 years, 23.7% were female, and 31.5% were nonwhite. After 6 months, the absolute difference in non-HDL-C for all participants was -19.8 mg/dL (95% CI -24.1 to -15.6, P < .001). There were no between-group differences in the primary end point for the combined PC groups (B and C) versus UC, with a Δ adjusted between group difference of -5.5 mg/dL (95% CI -13.1 to 2.1, P = .16). Patients in the PC groups were more likely to be on high-intensity statins at 6 months (52.9% vs 38.1%, P = .01). After excluding participants with baseline non-HDL-C <100 mg/dL (initial exclusion criterion), Δ non-HDL-C and Δ low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were improved in the PC groups compared to UC (non-HDL-C -8.13 mg/dL [-16.00 to -0.27], P = .04; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -7.87mg/dL [-15.10 to -0.64], P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Although non-HDL-C reduction at 6 months following a nonurgent CV procedure was not significant in the overall cohort, an increased uptake in high-potency statins may translate into improved long-term health outcomes and cost reductions.

Lipoprotein(a) screening in patients with controlled traditional risk factors undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an inherited atherogenic lipoprotein and an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; however, its clinical role remains limited. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that Lp(a) screening in high cardiovascular risk patients could provide insight into disease pathogenesis and modify physician behavior for treatment intensification targeting traditional risk factors when Lp(a)-related risk was identified. METHODS: We screened 113 patients presenting electively for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for Lp(a) who met any of the following criteria: (1) premature coronary artery disease (male age <55 years, female age <65 years); (2) family history of premature coronary artery disease; (3) progression to PCI despite well-controlled traditional risk factors (blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and HbA1c <7%, and nonsmoker); or (4) progression to PCI despite at least moderate intensity statin use (simvastatin 40, atorvastatin 40-80, or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily). RESULTS: In this high-risk cohort, Lp(a) was elevated in nearly half of all subjects, including those with seemingly well-controlled lipids by prior guidelines, suggesting a role for Lp(a) in conferring residual cardiovascular risk. In our cohort, when screened positive, knowledge of an elevated Lp(a) did not influence referring physicians' treatment intensification targeting traditional modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (P = .18). CONCLUSION: When screened judiciously, elevated levels of Lp(a) are highly prevalent in high cardiovascular risk patients, including at a young age, presenting for PCI and may contribute to previously unappreciated residual cardiovascular risk.

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes Mellitus.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause of death in T2D. Yet, <50% of U.S. adults with T2D meet recommended guidelines for CVD prevention. The burden of T2D is increasing: by 2050, approximately 1 in 3 U.S. individuals may have T2D, and patients with T2D will comprise an increasingly large proportion of the CVD population. The authors believe it is imperative that we expand the use of therapies proven to reduce CVD risk in patients with T2D. The authors summarize evidence and guidelines for lifestyle (exercise, nutrition, and weight management) and CVD risk factor (blood pressure, cholesterol and blood lipids, glycemic control, and the use of aspirin) management for the prevention of CVD among patients with T2D. The authors believe appropriate lifestyle and CVD risk factor management has the potential to significantly reduce the burden of CVD among patients with T2D.

Cardiovascular disease leads to a new algorithm for diabetes treatment.

Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and heart failure (HF). This increase occurs despite optimal lipid-lowering therapies. We reviewed clinical trials of diabetes treatments and their effects on circulating plasma lipoproteins and CVD. Several earlier studies failed to demonstrate clear CVD benefit from diabetes therapies. In addition, triglyceride-reducing agents did not reduce overall CVD in large clinical trials although these trials were not conducted in cohorts selected as hypertriglyceridemic. Specific classes such as the thiazolidinediones increased HF. After Food and Drug Administration mandates for more rigorous safety data, recent studies have not only demonstrated CVD safety for many diabetes mellitus agents, but have also shown that certain newer medications such as empagliflozin, canagliflozin, liraglutide, and semaglutide reduce CVD. Moreover, pioglitazone use in insulin-resistant patients has resulted in decreased cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events, suggesting a protective vascular effect of this agent. Benefits from these newer classes of medications are unlikely to be because of improved lipoprotein profiles. These disparities in diabetes medication effects on CVD are likely attributable to each drug or drug class' cardiometabolic effects. Selecting medications based solely on their potential to lower hemoglobin A1C is an outdated therapeutic approach. We propose a new algorithm for treatment of patients with type II diabetes such that medication selection is based on the presence or risk of coronary artery disease and/or HF.

Diabetes mellitus is a coronary heart disease risk equivalent for peripheral vascular disease.

Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) is associated with significantly increased risk of peripheral vascular disease. Diabetes is classified as a coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equivalent, but it is unknown whether diabetes is a CHD risk equivalent for peripheral vascular disease. The objective was to evaluate the odds of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) or carotid artery stenosis (CAS) among participants with diabetes, CHD, or both, compared with participants without diabetes or CHD, in a nationwide vascular screening database. We hypothesized that diabetes and CHD would confer similar odds of PAD and CAS. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of all eligible Life Line Screening Inc participants age 30 to 90 years with ankle brachial indices for PAD (ankle brachial index <0.9 in either leg) and carotid artery duplex ultrasonographic imaging for CAS (internal CAS ≥50%) was performed (N=3,522,890). RESULTS: Diabetes and CHD were present in 372,330 (10.7%) and 182,760 (5.8%) of participants, respectively; PAD and CAS were present in 155,000 (4.4%) and 130,347 (3.7%) of participants. After multivariable adjustment, PAD odds were 1.56 (95% CI 1.54-1.59) and 1.69 (95% CI 1.65-1.73) for participants with diabetes or CHD, respectively. Participants with both diabetes and CHD had 2.75-fold increased odds of PAD (95% CI 2.66-2.85). Findings were similar for CAS; compared with no diabetes or CHD, CAS odds increased for participants with diabetes alone (1.53, 95% CI 1.50-1.56), CHD alone (1.72, 95% CI 1.68-1.76), and both diabetes and CHD (2.57, 95% CI 2.49-2.66). Findings were consistent for women and men. CONCLUSION: In a large database of more than 3.5 million self-referred participants, diabetes was a CHD risk equivalent for PAD and CAS, and participants with comorbid diabetes and CHD had an especially robust association with PAD and CAS. Counseling regarding screening and prevention of peripheral vascular disease may be useful for patients with diabetes.

Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure Target After SPRINT: Insights from a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal on-treatment blood pressure (BP) target has been a matter of debate. The recent SPRINT trial showed significant benefits of a BP target of <120 mm Hg, albeit with an increase in serious adverse effects related to low BP. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized trials comparing treating with different BP targets. Trial arms were grouped into 5 systolic BP target categories: 1) <160 mm Hg, 2) <150 mm Hg, 3) <140 mm Hg, 4) <130 mm Hg, and 5) <120 mm Hg. Efficacy outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, heart failure, and safety outcomes of serious adverse effects were evaluated using a network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen trials that enrolled 55,163 patients with 204,103 patient-years of follow-up were included. There was a significant decrease in stroke (rate ratio [RR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-1.00) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00) with systolic BP <120 mm Hg (vs <160 mm Hg). Sensitivity analysis using achieved systolic BP showed a 72%, 97%, and 227% increase in stroke with systolic BP of <140 mm Hg, <150 mm Hg, and <160 mm, respectively, when compared with systolic BP <120 mm Hg. There was no difference in death, cardiovascular death, or heart failure when comparing any of the BP targets. However, the point estimate favored lower BP targets (<120 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg) when compared with higher BP targets (<140 mm Hg or <150 mm Hg). BP targets of <120 mm Hg and <130 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2, respectively, as the most efficacious target. There was a significant increase in serious adverse effects with systolic BP <120 mm Hg vs <150 mm Hg (RR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.05-3.20) or vs <140 mm Hg (RR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.46-3.08). BP targets of <140 mm Hg and <150 mm Hg ranked #1 and #2, respectively, as the safest target for the outcome of serious adverse effects. Cluster plots for combined efficacy and safety showed that a systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg had optimal balance between efficacy and safety. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hypertension, a on-treatment systolic BP target of <130 mm Hg achieved optimal balance between efficacy and safety.

Cardiovascular Effects of the New Weight Loss Agents.

The global obesity epidemic and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes is a topic of ongoing debate and investigation in the cardiology community. It is well known that obesity is associated with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Although life-style changes are the first line of therapy, they are often insufficient in achieving weight loss goals. Liraglutide, naltrexone/bupropion, and phentermine/topiramate are new agents that have been recently approved to treat obesity, but their effects on cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes are not well described. This review summarizes data currently available for these novel agents regarding drug safety, effects on major cardiovascular risk factors, impact on cardiovascular outcomes, outcomes research that is currently in progress, and areas of uncertainty. Given the impact of obesity on cardiovascular health, there is a pressing clinical need to understand the effects of these agents beyond weight loss alone.

Management of Hypogonadism in Cardiovascular Patients: What Are the Implications of Testosterone Therapy on Cardiovascular Morbidity?

Testosterone replacement therapy is recommended for men with clinical androgen deficiency with decades of evidence supporting its use for treatment of sexual, physical, and psychological consequences of male hypogonadism. In this updated review, the authors discuss the implications of testosterone deficiency and conflicting evidence regarding testosterone replacement therapy and its effects on the cardiovascular system. Based on mounting evidence, the authors conclude that testosterone therapy can be safely considered in men with appropriately diagnosed clinical androgen deficiency and concurrent cardiovascular risk factors and even manifest cardiovascular disease after a thorough discussion of potential risks and with guideline-recommended safety monitoring.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients Without Heart Failure? Insights From 254,301 Patients From Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized trials identified using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches from January 1, 1980, through April 13, 2015, of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and new-onset diabetes. RESULTS: Our search yielded 106 randomized trials that enrolled 254,301 patients. Compared with placebo, ACEis but not ARBs reduced the outcomes of all-cause mortality (ACEis vs placebo: relative risk [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00; ARBs vs placebo: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; Pinteraction=.04), cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99 and RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; Pinteraction=.05), and MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90 and RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; Pinteraction=.06). The meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo was due to a higher placebo event rate in the ACEis trials (most of these trials were conducted a decade earlier than the ARB trials) for the outcome of all-cause mortality (P=.001), cardiovascular death (P<.001), and MI (P=.02). Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo (Pinteraction>.05). Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes except for a lower risk of drug withdrawal due to adverse effects with ARBs (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81). CONCLUSION: In patients without heart failure, evidence from placebo-controlled trials (restricted to trials after 2000), active controlled trials, and head-to-head randomized trials all suggest ARBs to be as efficacious and safe as ACEis, with the added advantage of better tolerability.

Prevalence of unrecognized diabetes, prediabetes and metabolic syndrome in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome are important targets for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease. However, the prevalence in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention is not well defined. We aimed to analyse the prevalence and characteristics of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with previously unrecognized prediabetes, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Data were collected from 740 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention between November 2010 and March 2013 at a tertiary referral center. Prevalence of DM and prediabetes was evaluated using Haemoglobin A1c (A1c ≥ 6.5% for DM, A1c 5.7-6.4% for prediabetes). A modified definition was used for metabolic syndrome [three or more of the following criteria: body mass index ≥30 kg/m2; triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL; high density lipoprotein <40 mg/dL in men and <50 mg/dL in women; systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic ≥ 85 mmHg; and A1c ≥ 5.7% or on therapy]. RESULTS: Mean age was 67 years, median body mass index was 28.2 kg/m(2) and 39% had known DM. Of those without known DM, 8.3% and 58.5% met A1c criteria for DM and for prediabetes at time of percutaneous coronary intervention. Overall, 54.9% met criteria for metabolic syndrome (69.2% of patients with DM and 45.8% of patients without DM). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, a substantial number were identified with a new DM, prediabetes, and/or metabolic syndrome. Routine screening for an abnormal glucometabolic state at the time of revascularization may be useful for identifying patients who may benefit from additional targeting of modifiable risk factors.

The role of testosterone therapy in cardiovascular mortality: culprit or innocent bystander?

Testosterone therapy is recommended for men with symptomatic androgen deficiency and unequivocally low testosterone levels. Although the prevalence of hypogonadism seems relatively constant, studies of prescribing patterns in both the United States and the United Kingdom show a dramatic increase in testosterone prescription in recent years, possibly due to increased marketing and inappropriate therapy. Concurrent with this, there has been growing concern regarding the potential adverse effects of testosterone therapy, particularly its cardiovascular risks. In this review, we present our current understanding of the implications of testosterone deficiency, as well as the conflicting evidence surrounding the cardiovascular effects of testosterone replacement therapy. Although there is a lack of adequate data, based on the current evidence, we conclude that testosterone therapy can be safely considered in men with appropriately diagnosed clinical androgen deficiency and increased cardiovascular risk after a thorough discussion of potential risks and with guideline recommended safety monitoring.