Special Considerations for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion Across the Life Span in Clinical Settings: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

At a population level, engagement in healthy lifestyle behaviors is suboptimal in the United States. Moreover, marked disparities exist in healthy lifestyle behaviors and cardiovascular risk factors as a result of social determinants of health. In addition, there are specific challenges to engaging in healthy lifestyle behaviors related to age, developmental stage, or major life circumstances. Key components of a healthy lifestyle are consuming a healthy dietary pattern, engaging in regular physical activity, avoiding use of tobacco products, habitually attaining adequate sleep, and managing stress. For these health behaviors, there are guidelines and recommendations; however, promotion in clinical settings can be challenging, particularly in certain population groups. These challenges must be overcome to facilitate greater promotion of healthy lifestyle practices in clinical settings. The 5A Model (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) was developed to provide a framework for clinical counseling with consideration for the demands of clinical settings. In this science advisory, we summarize specific considerations for lifestyle-related behavior change counseling using the 5A Model for patients across the life span. In all life stages, social determinants of health and unmet social-related health needs, as well as overweight and obesity, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and there is the potential to modify this risk with lifestyle-related behavior changes. In addition, specific considerations for lifestyle-related behavior change counseling in life stages in which lifestyle behaviors significantly affect cardiovascular disease risk are outlined. Greater attention to healthy lifestyle behaviors during every clinician visit will contribute to improved cardiovascular health.

Strategies for Promotion of a Healthy Lifestyle in Clinical Settings: Pillars of Ideal Cardiovascular Health: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Engagement in healthy lifestyle behaviors is suboptimal. The vast majority of the US population does not meet current recommendations. A healthy lifestyle is defined by consuming a healthy dietary pattern, engaging in regular physical activity, avoiding exposure to tobacco products, habitually attaining adequate amounts of sleep, and managing stress levels. For all these health behaviors there are well-established guidelines; however, promotion in clinical settings can be challenging. It is critical to overcome these challenges because greater promotion of heathy lifestyle practices in clinical settings effectively motivates and initiates patient behavior change. The 5A Model (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) was developed to provide a framework for clinical counseling with requisite attention to the demands of clinical settings. In this science advisory, we present strategies, based on the 5A Model, that clinicians and other health care professionals can use for efficient lifestyle-related behavior change counseling in patients at all levels of cardiovascular disease risk at every visit. In addition, we discuss the underlying role of psychological health and well-being in lifestyle-related behavior change counseling, and how clinicians can leverage health technologies when providing brief patient-centered counseling. Greater attention to healthy lifestyle behaviors during routine clinician visits will contribute to promoting cardiovascular health.

Statin prescription rates and their facility-level variation in patients with peripheral artery disease and ischemic cerebrovascular disease: Insights from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline recommends moderate to high-intensity statin therapy in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD). We examined frequency and facility-level variation in any statin prescription and in guideline-concordant statin prescriptions in patients with PAD and ICVD receiving primary care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system between October 2013 and September 2014. Guideline-concordant statin intensity was defined as the prescription of high-intensity statins in patients with PAD or ICVD ≤75 years and at least moderate-intensity statins in those >75 years. We calculated median rate ratios (MRR) after adjusting for patient demographic factors to assess the magnitude of facility-level variation in statin prescribing patterns independent of patient characteristics. Among 194,151 PAD patients, 153,438 patients (79.0%) were prescribed any statin and 79,435 (40.9%) were prescribed a guideline-concordant intensity of statin. PAD patients without ischemic heart disease were prescribed any statin and a guideline-concordant intensity of statin therapy less frequently (69.1% and 28.9%, respectively). Among 339,771 ICVD patients, 265,491 (78.1%) were prescribed any statin and 136,430 (40.2%) were prescribed a guideline-concordant intensity of statin. ICVD patients without ischemic heart disease were prescribed any statin and a guideline-concordant intensity of statin less frequently (70.9% and 30.5%, respectively). MRRs for both PAD and ICVD patients demonstrated a 20% and 28% variation among two facilities in treating two identical patients with statin therapy and guideline-concordant intensity of statin therapy, respectively. The prescription of statins, especially guideline-recommended intensity of statin therapy, is suboptimal in PAD and ICVD patients, with significant facility-level variation not explained by patient-level factors.

Mobile Health (mHealth) Technology for the Management of Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia: Slow Start but Loads of Potential.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension and hyperlipidemia represent two major risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Mobile health or mHealth is defined as the use of mobile phone and wireless technologies to support the achievement of health objectives. Management of hypertension, and to some extent hyperlipidemia, has often employed mHealth interventions given lower cost and greater patient engagement compared to traditional methods. These interventions include the use of text messaging, wireless devices, and mobile phone applications. This review considers recent studies evaluating the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in the management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous studies have evaluated the role of mHealth interventions in the management of hypertension, while very few have evaluated their role in hyperlipidemia. Text messaging has been used most frequently. However, the trend is shifting towards the use of mobile phone applications and wireless devices. Interventions in developing countries have been modified for greater applicability to local settings. mHealth interventions were found to be frequently effective. However, studies comparing the relative efficacy of various mHealth strategies are scarce. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes data and analyses relating to cost effectiveness are also lacking. mHealth interventions may be effective in improving hypertension management. More studies are needed to evaluate the role of mHealth strategies in hyperlipidemia management, particularly in identifying high-risk individuals and improving medication adherence. Studies assessing the long-term impact of these interventions, comparing different interventions and analyzing their relative cost effectiveness, are also needed. Following recently published guidelines on reporting results of mHealth interventions will provide a more meaningful context for interpreting these promising early studies.

Using Mobile Health (mHealth) Technology in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus, Physical Inactivity, and Smoking.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular mortality remains high due to insufficient progress made in managing cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, physical inactivity, and smoking. Healthy lifestyle choices play an important role in the management of these modifiable risk factors. Mobile health or mHealth is defined as the use of mobile computing and communication technologies (i.e., mobile phones, wearable sensors) for the delivery of health services and health-related information. In this review, we examine some recent studies that utilized mHealth tools to improve management of these risk factors, with examples from developing countries where available. RECENT FINDINGS: The mHealth intervention used depends on the availability of resources. While developing countries are often restricted to text messages, more resourceful settings are shifting towards mobile phone applications and wearable technology. Diabetes mellitus has been extensively studied in different settings, and results have been encouraging. Tools utilized to increase physical activity are expensive, and studies have been limited to resource-abundant areas and have shown mixed results. Smoking cessation has had promising initial results with the use of technology, but mHealth's ability to recruit participants beyond those actively seeking to quit has not been established. mHealth interventions appear to be a potential tool in improving control of cardiovascular risk factors that rely on individuals making healthy lifestyle choices. Data related to clinical impact, if any, of commercially available tools is lacking. More studies are needed to assess interventions that target multiple cardiovascular risk factors and their impact on hard cardiovascular outcomes.

Gemfibrozil in Combination with Statins-Is It Really Contraindicated?

Gemfibrozil is a lipid-modifying agent that belongs to the fibric acid derivative class. Fibric acid derivatives activate peroxisome proliferator activated receptor α (PPAR-α). The primary role of these agents in clinical practice is for the management of hypertriglyceridemia. Triglycerides may be reduced by as much as 74 % in some patients. In addition to lowering triglycerides, these agents can also decrease very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Based on the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults and the National Lipid Association, pharmacologic therapy to reduce triglycerides should be considered when triglyceride levels are ≥500 mg/dL. While the use of gemfibrozil has decreased over the years for a variety of reasons, muscle-associated adverse effects is the predominant reason and the one that is most clinically relevant. However, despite these concerns, there are situations in which the use of gemfibrozil in combination with a statin may be necessary. Understanding the metabolism of gemfibrozil and the degree of interaction with the various statins will assist health-care providers to optimize safety when this combination is clinically indicated.

What the guidelines do not say: statin non-benefit groups.

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk identified four groups of adults (40-75 years of age) with significant evidence for benefit from statin therapy: presence of clinical ASCVD or diabetes, age ≥21 years and LDL-C >190 mg/dl, and 10-year risk of hard ASCVD events ≥7.5 % as determined by the new Cardiovascular Risk Calculator. However, clinicians are faced daily with at-risk patients who do not clearly match one of these statin-benefit groups. Understanding the limitations of available evidence and awareness of additional published guidelines for statin non-benefit groups will help practitioners make personalized decisions with patients and inform the clinician-patient discussion regarding potential risks and benefits of statin therapy.

Aspirin With or Without Statin in Individuals Without Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Across Risk Categories.

Background: The effects of aspirin in adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), stratified by statin use across different ASCVD risks, remain uncertain. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of aspirin in adults without ASCVD, stratified by statin use across different ASCVD risks. Methods: We searched databases through March 2022 and selected randomized controlled trials of aspirin without ASCVD and follow-up of ≥1 year. We used random-effects models and estimated relative and absolute risks for cardiovascular outcomes, major bleeding, and mortality over 5 years. We calculated absolute risk differences assuming constant relative risks (RRs) across statin use and ASCVD risks. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration, and the ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) trial were used to estimate baseline risks. Results: In 16 trials [171,215 individuals; median age, 64 (Q1-Q3: 60-65) years], aspirin vs control reduced myocardial infarction (MI) [RR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95)] but increased major bleeding [RR: 1.48 (95% CI: 1.32-1.66)]. Aspirin did not reduce mortality. Statin vs no statin was associated with lower bleeding and MI risk; the bleeding and MI risk were proportional to ASCVD risk. For every 10,000 adults, aspirin reduced MI (very low risk: 3 events as monotherapy or 1 event with statin; very high risk: 49 events as monotherapy or 37 events with statin) and increased major bleeding (very low risk: 21 events as monotherapy or 20 events with statin; very high risk: 98 events as monotherapy or 94 events with statin) proportional to baseline ASCVD risk. Conclusions: In adults without ASCVD, concomitant statin appeared to significantly reduce absolute risk reduction for MI associated with aspirin without influencing bleeding risk. The anticipated absolute risk of major bleeding with aspirin exceeds absolute MI benefits for every level of ASCVD risk.

Smokeless Tobacco Use and Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease Among Males in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, Waves 1-4.

The purpose of this period prevalence study is to compare the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in current/former established smokeless tobacco (SLT) users (ever SLT users who have used the product fairly regularly) to those who were: 1) never established cigarette smokers and SLT users, and 2) current/former established exclusive cigarette smokers (have smoked at least a 100 or more cigarettes in lifetime) only, adjusting for known risk factors for CVD. Analyses included 4,703 men ≥ 40 years of age who participated in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, Waves: 1-4, conducted between 2013 and 2017. Current users were those using SLT products daily or on some days, whereas former users had not used SLT and/or cigarettes in the past 12 months. CVD prevalence was defined as a self-reported diagnosis of congestive heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Among current/former established SLT users, years of use defined exposure history, while pack-years defined exposure history for smokers. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported with trend tests to examine dose-response associations. Current/former established exclusive SLT users were not significantly more likely to have had any CVD compared to never established cigarette and SLT users (OR = 1.7 [0.8-3.7]), or current/former established exclusive cigarette smokers (OR = 0.9 [0.5-1.8]). Current/former established exclusive cigarette smokers were more likely to have had any CVD compared to those who were never established cigarette and SLT users (OR = 1.6 [1.1-2.3]).

Association of Smokeless Tobacco Use With the Use of Other Illicit Drugs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in the use of smokeless tobacco recently. Whether smokeless tobacco use may predispose individuals to use other addictive substances is unknown. The use of multiple addictive substances may compound an individual's adverse health effects. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis, we used the 2016-2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey database to identify all individuals who reported the use of smokeless tobacco and extracted data regarding baseline and demographic patterns, as well as information regarding the use of other addictive substances. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, poverty level, education, employment status, and marital status were used to determine the odds ratios (ORs) for use of alcohol, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and marijuana among smokeless tobacco users. RESULTS: We identified 30,395 (3.38%) individuals in our study population who reported smokeless tobacco use. Compared with non-users, smokeless tobacco users were more likely to be unmarried, male, Caucasian, belonging to the lower socioeconomic strata, and did not have a formal college education (P <0.01). In multivariable analyses, smokeless tobacco use was associated with a higher likelihood of cigarettes use (OR: 1.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.66-1.86, P <0.01]), e-cigarette use (OR: 1.61 [95% CI: 1.52-1.71, P <0.01]), and heavy alcohol consumption (OR:2.36 [95% CI: 2.17-2.56, P <0.01]) but not marijuana use (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.90-1.38, P = 0.33]). CONCLUSION: In a large, nationally representative sample, smokeless tobacco use was associated with the increased use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and alcohol. Simultaneous use of these substances may compound the adverse health effects of smokeless tobacco use. Public health interventions addressing this concerning trend are warranted.

Comparison of Methods to Estimate Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients With High Triglyceride Levels.

Importance: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is typically estimated with the Friedewald or Martin/Hopkins equation; however, if triglyceride levels are 400 mg/dL or greater, laboratories reflexively perform direct LDL-C (dLDL-C) measurement. The use of direct chemical LDL-C assays and estimation of LDL-C via the National Institutes of Health Sampson equation are not well validated, and data on the accuracy of LDL-C estimation at higher triglyceride levels are limited. Objective: To compare an extended Martin/Hopkins equation for triglyceride values of 400 to 799 mg/dL with the Friedewald and Sampson equations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated consecutive patients at clinical sites across the US with patient lipid distributions representative of the US population in the Very Large Database of Lipids from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015, with triglyceride levels of 400 to 799 mg/dL. Data analysis was performed from November 9, 2020, to March 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy in LDL-C classification according to guideline-based categories and absolute errors between estimated LDL-C and dLDL-C levels. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to derivation and validation data sets. Levels of dLDL-C were measured by vertical spin-density gradient ultracentrifugation. The LDL-C levels were estimated using the Friedewald method, with a fixed ratio of triglycerides to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C ratio of 5:1), extended Martin/Hopkins equation with a flexible ratio, and Sampson equation with VLDL-C estimation by multiple least-squares regression. Results: A total of 111 939 patients (mean [SD] age, 52 [13] years; 65.0% male) with triglyceride levels of 400 to 799 mg/dL were included, representing 2.2% of 5 081 680 patients in the database. Across all individual guideline LDL-C classes (<40, 40-69, 70-99, 100-129, 130-159, 160-189, and ≥190), estimation of LDL-C by the extended Martin/Hopkins equation was most accurate (62.1%) compared with the Friedewald (19.3%) and Sampson (40.4%) equations. In classifying LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL across all triglyceride strata, the extended Martin/Hopkins equation was most accurate (67.3%) compared with Friedewald (5.1%) and Sampson (26.4%) equations. In addition, for classifying LDL-C levels less than 40 mg/dL across all triglyceride strata, the extended Martin/Hopkins equation was most accurate (57.2%) compared with the Friedewald (4.3%) and Sampson (14.4%) equations. However, considerable underclassification of LDL-C occurred. The magnitude of error between the Martin/Hopkins equation estimation and dLDL-C was also smaller: at LDL-C levels less than 40 mg/dL, 2.7% of patients had 30 mg/dL or greater differences between dLDL-C and estimated LDL-C using the Martin/Hopkins equation compared with the Friedewald (92.5%) and Sampson (38.7%) equations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the extended Martin/Hopkins equation offered greater LDL-C accuracy compared with the Friedewald and Sampson equations in patients with triglyceride levels of 400 to 799 mg/dL. However, regardless of method used, caution is advised with LDL-C estimation in this triglyceride range.

Preventive Cardiology as a Subspecialty of Cardiovascular Medicine: JACC Council Perspectives.

Although significant progress has been made to reduce the global burden of cardiovascular disease, efforts have focused primarily on treatment of manifest disease rather than on prevention of events. An enormous opportunity exists to transition focus from intervention to providing equal attention to prevention of cardiovascular disease. The nascent specialty of "preventive cardiology" is emerging from the background of long-established services such as lipid, diabetes, hypertension, and general cardiology clinics. It is incumbent on the cardiology community to invest in cardiovascular prevention because past gains are threatened with the rising tide of obesity and diabetes. Now is the time to establish a dedicated preventive cardiology subspecialty to train the clinicians of the future. This American College of Cardiology Council Perspective aims to define the need for preventive cardiology as a unique subspecialty, broaches controversies, provides a structure for future training and education, and identifies possible paths forward to professional certification.

Relationship Between Pregnancy Complications and Subsequent Coronary Artery Disease Assessed by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography in Black Women.

BACKGROUND: Maternal pregnancy complications, particularly preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus, are described to increase the risk for subsequent coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, black women are at higher risk for CAD. The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence and extent of CAD as detected by coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in black women with and without a history of prior pregnancy complications. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patient characteristics and CCTA findings in groups of black women with a prior history of preterm delivery (n=154), preeclampsia (n=137), or gestational diabetes mellitus (n=148), and a matched control group of black women who gave birth without such complications (n=445). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess risk factors of CAD. RESULTS: All groups with prior pregnancy complications showed higher rates of any (≥20% luminal narrowing) and obstructive (≥50% luminal narrowing) CAD (preterm delivery: 29.2% and 9.1%; preeclampsia: 29.2% and 7.3%; and gestational diabetes mellitus: 47.3% and 15.5%) compared with control women (23.8% and 5.4%). After accounting for confounding factors at multivariate analysis, gestational diabetes mellitus remained a strong risk factor of any (odds ratio, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.03-5.22; P<0.001) and obstructive CAD (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.55-5.80; P<0.001) on CCTA. CONCLUSIONS: Black women with a history of pregnancy complications, particularly gestational diabetes mellitus, have a higher prevalence of CAD on CCTA while only a history of gestational diabetes mellitus was independently associated with any and obstructive CAD on CCTA.

Variation in Lipid-Lowering Therapy Use in Patients With Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ≥190 mg/dL: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥190 mg/dL are at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. Treatment guidelines recommend intensive treatment in these patients. Variation in the use of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in these patients in a national sample of cardiology practices is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry, we assessed the proportion of patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL (n=49 447) receiving statin, high-intensity statin, LLT associated with ≥50% LDL-C lowering, ezetimibe, or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor between January 2013 and December 2016. We assessed practice-level rates and variation in LLT use using median rate ratio (MRR) adjusted for patient and practice characteristics. MRRs represent the likelihood that 2 random practices would differ in treatment of identical patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL. The proportion of patients receiving a statin, high-intensity statin, LLT associated with ≥50% LDL-C reduction, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor were 58.5%, 31.9%, 34.6%, 8.5%, and 1.5%, respectively. Median practice-level rates and adjusted MRR for statin (56% [interquartile range, 47.3%-64.8%]; MRR, 1.20 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.23]), high-intensity statin (30.2% [interquartile range, 12.1%-41.1%]; MRR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.12-2.51]), LLT with ≥50% LDL-C lowering (31.8% [interquartile range, 15.3%-45.5%]; MRR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.95-2.28]), ezetimibe (5.8% [interquartile range, 2.8%-9.8%]; MRR, 2.42 [95% CI, 2.21-2.63]), and PCSK9 inhibitors (0.16% [interquartile range, 0%-1.9%]; MRR, 2.38 [95% CI, 2.04-2.72]) indicated significant gaps and >200% variation in receipt of several of these medications for patients across practices. Among those without concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, even larger treatment gaps were noted (proportion of patients on a statin, high-intensity statin, LLT with ≥50% LDL-C reduction, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor were 50.8%, 25.25%, 26.8%, 4.9%, and 0.74%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based LLT use remains low among patients with elevated LDL-C with significant variation in care. System-level interventions are needed to address these gaps and reduce variation in care of these high-risk patients.

A Clinician's Guide for Trending Cardiovascular Nutrition Controversies: Part II.

The potential cardiovascular (CV) benefits of many trending foods and dietary patterns are still incompletely understood, and scientific inquiry continues to evolve. In the meantime, however, a number of controversial dietary patterns, foods, and nutrients have received significant media attention and are mired by "hype." This second review addresses some of the more recent popular foods and dietary patterns that are recommended for CV health to provide clinicians with current information for patient discussions in the clinical setting. Specifically, this paper delves into dairy products, added sugars, legumes, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, mushrooms, fermented foods, seaweed, plant and marine-derived omega-3-fatty acids, and vitamin B12.