BACKGROUND: Statins are the leading lipid-lowering drugs, reducing blood cholesterol by controlling its synthesis. Side effects are linked to the use of statins, in particular statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Some data suggest that vitamin D supplementation could reduce SAMS.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Men (n = 23) and women (n = 15) (50.5 ± 7.7 years [mean ± SD]) in primary cardiovascular prevention, self-reporting or not SAMS, were recruited. Following 2 months of statin withdrawal, patients were randomized to supplementation (vitamin D or placebo). After 1 month of supplementation, statins were reintroduced. Before and 2 months after drug reintroduction, muscle damage (creatine kinase and myoglobin) was measured. Force (F), endurance (E) and power (P) of the leg extensors (ext) and flexors (fle) and handgrip strength (FHG) were also measured with isokinetic and handheld dynamometers, respectively. The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire and a visual analog scale (VAS) were administrated to assess participants\' self-reported health-related quality of life and SAMS intensity, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis was used to investigate the effects of time, supplementation, and their interaction, according to the presence of SAMS.
RESULTS: Despite no change for objective measures, subjective measures worsened after reintroduction of statins, independent of supplementation (VAS, SF-36 mental component score, all p < 0.05). However, no interaction between time and supplementation according to the presence of SAMS was observed for any variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation does not appear to mitigate SAMS.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major challenge, especially in communities of low- and middle-income countries with poor medical assistance influenced by distinct local, financial, infrastructural, and resource-related factors.
This a community-based study aimed to determine the proportion and prevalence of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors (CRF) in Brazilian communities.
The EPICO study was an observational, cross-sectional, and community clinic-based study. Subjects were living in Brazilian communities and were of both sexes and ≥18 years old, without a history of a stroke or myocardial infarction but presenting at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. The study was carried out in Brazil, including 322 basic health units (BHU) in 32 cities.
A total of 7,724 subjects with at least one CRF were evaluated, and one clinical visit was performed. Mean age was 59.2 years-old (53.7% were >60 years old). A total of 66.7% were women. Of the total, 96.2% had hypertension, 78.8% had diabetes mellitus type II, 71.1% had dyslipidemia, and 76.6% of patients were overweight/obese. Controlled hypertension (defined by <130/80 mmHg or <140/90 mmHg) was observed in 34.9% and 55.5% patients among respective criteria, the rates of controlled blood glucose in patients taking antidiabetic medications was 29.5%, and among those with documented dyslipidemia who received any lipid-lowering medication, only 13.9% had LDL-c on target. For patients presenting three CRF less than 1.9% had LDL-c < 100 mg/dL once their BP and blood glucose were on target. High education level as associated with blood pressure (BP) target of less than 130 / 80mm Hg. The glucose and LDL-c levels on target were associated with the presence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus.
In Brazilian community clinics, regarding most patients in primary prevention, the CRF such as BP, blood glucose, and lipid levels are poorly controlled, with a majority of patients not achieving guidelines/recommendations.

There is a pandemic of physical inactivity that appears to parallel the widespread prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Yet, regular physical activity (PA) and exercise can play an important role not only in primary cardiovascular prevention but also in secondary prevention. This review discusses some of the main cardiovascular effects of PA/exercise and the mechanisms involved, including a healthier metabolic milieu with attenuation of systemic chronic inflammation, as well as adaptations at the vascular (antiatherogenic effects) and heart tissue (myocardial regeneration and cardioprotection) levels. The current evidence for safe implementation of PA and exercise in patients with CVD is also summarized.

OBJECTIVE: While some work has been done on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in statin users, none has focused specifically on statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) sufferers. The objective was to assess self-reported HRQoL, before and after statin withdrawal, in patients reporting SAMS. We hypothesized that the presence of SAMS associated with decreased self-reported physical and mental well-being.
METHODS: Patients (50 men/28 women [M/W], aged 49 ± 9 years [Mean ± SD]) in primary cardiovascular prevention were recruited into three cohorts: statin users with (SAMS, 29 M/18W) or without symptoms (No SAMS, 10 M/5W) and controls (11 M/5W). The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess HRQoL. All variables were measured before and after 2 months of statin withdrawal, and repeated measures analyses were used to verify withdrawal and group effects as well as their interaction.
RESULTS: SF-36 physical and mental component scores (respectively, PCS and MCS) were lower in the SAMS group compared with other groups (both p < 0.01). Statin withdrawal led to an increase in LDL cholesterol for statin users (+69.0%, p < 0.01) and an improvement in well-being in the SAMS group, other groups showing no change. A time x category interaction (p = 0.02) was seen for PCS and post hoc analyses showed that statin withdrawal improved PCS and MCS (respectively, +12.5% [ES 0.77] and +5.1% [ES 0.27], both p < 0.05) in the SAMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients self-reporting SAMS showed improved HRQoL following drug withdrawal, but this was mirrored by a rise in LDL cholesterol. These findings should be considered by clinicians in the evaluation and follow-up of treatment with statins.

It is well established that people with diabetes are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with those without diabetes. Although the protective role of aspirin in secondary prevention is well documented, its role in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes, after the results of major clinical trials and meta-analyses, is unclear. The observed discrepancies might be explained in part in terms of the differences between the background cardiovascular risks, follow-up periods, age and gender of the study populations. Recently, the results of the ASCEND trial in people with diabetes documented the cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention, but with an increased risk of bleeding that might outweigh the observed cardiovascular benefit. Therefore, current guidelines recommend its use for primary prevention in people with and without diabetes under specific circumstances. The purpose of the present review is to summarize the existing literature data regarding the place that aspirin has in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes.

UNASSIGNED: Aspirin at low doses has been reported to be a potential drug candidate to treat or prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
UNASSIGNED: We aimed to explore whether low-dose aspirin used for primary cardiovascular prevention was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19.
UNASSIGNED: A large cohort of patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities was constructed from the entire French population registered in national health care databases. In total, 31.1 million patients aged ≥40 years, including 1.5 million reimbursed for low-dose aspirin at least at three time points during the 6 months before the epidemic, were followed until hospitalization with a COVID-19 diagnosis or intubation/death for hospitalized patients.
UNASSIGNED: Cox models adjusted for age and sex showed a positive association between low-dose aspirin and the risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29-1.37]) or death/intubation (HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.33-1.47]). In fully adjusted models, associations were close to null (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00-1.06] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.98-1.10], respectively).
UNASSIGNED: There was no evidence for an effect of low-dose aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention in reducing severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: translation of the available evidence concerning primary cardiovascular prevention into clinical guidance for the heterogeneous population of older adults is challenging. With this review, we aimed to give an overview of the thresholds and targets of antihypertensive drug therapy for older adults in currently used guidelines on primary cardiovascular prevention. Secondly, we evaluated the relationship between the advised targets and guideline characteristics, including guideline quality.
METHODS: we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Emcare and five guideline databases. We selected guidelines with (i) numerical thresholds for the initiation or target values of antihypertensive drug therapy in context of primary prevention (January 2008-July 2020) and (ii) specific advice concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. We extracted the recommendations and appraised the quality of included guidelines with the AGREE II instrument.
RESULTS: thirty-four guidelines provided recommendations concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. Twenty advised a higher target of systolic blood pressure (SBP) for octogenarians in comparison with the general population and three advised a lower target. Over half of the guidelines (n = 18) recommended to target a SBP <150 mmHg in the oldest old, while four endorsed targets of SBP lower than 130 or 120 mmHg. Although many guidelines acknowledged frailty, only three gave specific thresholds and targets. Guideline characteristics, including methodological quality, were not related with the recommended targets.
CONCLUSIONS: the ongoing debate concerning targets of antihypertensive treatment in older adults, is reflected in an inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines. Recommended targets are largely set on chronological rather than biological age.

Patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) present elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk. Current CV risk stratification algorithms developed for the general population are not adapted for heFH patients. It is therefore of singular importance to develop and validate CV prediction tools, which are dedicated to the HeFH population.
Our first objective was to validate the Spanish SAFEHEART-risk equation (RE) in the French HeFH cohort (REFERCHOL), and the second to compare SAFEHEART-RE with the low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)-year-score for the prediction of CV events in the HeFH French population.
We included HeFH (n = 1473) patients with a genetic or clinical diagnosis (DLCN score ≥8). Among them, 512 patients with a 5-year follow-up were included to validate the 5 year-CV-RE. A total of 152 events (10.3%) occurred in the entire population of 1473 patients during a mean follow-up of 3.9 years. Over the five-year follow-up, non-fatal CV events occurred in 103 patients (20.2%). Almost all the parameters used in the SAFEHEART-RE were confirmed as strong predictors of CV events in the REFERCHOL cohort. The C-statistic revealed a satisfactory performance of both the SAFEHEART-RE and LDL-C-year-scores in predicting CV events for all the patients (primary and secondary prevention) (C-index 0.77 and 0.70, respectively) as well as for those in primary prevention at inclusion (C-index 0.78 and 0.77, respectively).
This analysis represents the first external validation of the SAFEHEART-RE and demonstrated that both SAFEHEART-RE and the LDL-C-year-score are good predictors of CV events in primary prevention HeFH patients.

People with diabetes are at a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared with those without diabetes. Though aspirin has been shown to have an overall net clinical benefit when used for secondary prevention of ASCVD in people with and without diabetes, the evidence for primary prevention, especially in those with diabetes, remains inconsistent. In this article, we review the latest studies examining the risks and benefits of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD in adults with diabetes, discuss key aspects in assessing the risk-benefit ratio of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD, and summarize current guidelines from professional societies on aspirin use for primary prevention in adults with diabetes.
In the general population, past studies have shown no difference in the beneficial effect of aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention by diabetes status. However, several randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses in adults with diabetes have shown lack of net clinical benefit of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD. The recent ASCEND trial documented cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention in adults with diabetes but suggested that the increased risk of bleeding may outweigh the cardiovascular benefit. The decision to initiate aspirin for primary prevention of ASCVD must be considered carefully on an individual basis to balance the cardiovascular benefit and bleeding risk in all patients, especially those with diabetes. A multifactorial approach that focuses on managing ASCVD risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, and smoking is recommended in all patients. More research is needed to identify subgroups of people with diabetes who are more likely to benefit from aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD and develop better antithrombotic strategies that shift the risk-benefit balance toward an overall net clinical benefit.