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

UNASSIGNED: Prior studies have suggested significant underutilization of statins in women and worse cardiovascular outcomes. Data examining the impact of real-world coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring to improve utilization of preventive therapies and outcomes is limited.
UNASSIGNED: In a prospective registry study of low cost or no-cost CAC scoring between 2014 and 19 (CLARIFY Study, Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04075162), we sought to study the association of CAC scoring on statin utilization, blood lipids (LDL, total cholesterol, triglycerides), downstream ischemic testing (coronary angiography and stress testing), coronary revascularization and outcomes (MI, stroke, death) in women compared with men. Eligibility for statin initiation was defined as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease pooled cohort equation (ASCVD-PCE) ≥ 7.5% and CAC≥100/≥75th percentile.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 52,151 patients (26,336 women and 25,815 men) were enrolled. Women were more likely to have CAC 0 (51% vs 30%, P<0.001). Among patients not eligible for statin by PCE, CAC reclassified statin eligibility in a smaller proportion of women than men (25.4% vs 30%, P<0.001), while among patients eligible for statin by PCE, CAC was more likely to downgrade risk/statin eligibility in women than men (30.1% vs 48.4%, P<0.001). After CAC scoring, statin initiation was similar in women and men, but high-intensity statin use was lower in women (CAC-adjusted HR 0.76 [0.70-0.83], P<0.001). Women had similar reduction in LDL cholesterol levels compared with men. There was no difference between men and women with respect to CAC-stratified major adverse cardiovascular events.
UNASSIGNED: CAC scoring primarily served to downgrade statin eligibility in women compared with men. Women had similar CAC risk-guided reductions in LDL cholesterol compared with men.

UNASSIGNED: Statin eligibility based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines among patients with diabetes admitted with first time acute myocardial infarction has not been evaluated in the Middle East.
UNASSIGNED: To assess statin eligibility for diabetic patients admitted with first time myocardial infarction in Jordan according to ACC/AHA guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Consecutive patients admitted with a first acute myocardial infarction who were not taking statins, and had their serum lipoproteins measured upon hospital admission were enrolled in the study. Statin eligibility among patients with diabetes admitted with first time myocardial infarction was determined based on the ACC/AHA guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Of 774 patients enrolled, 292 (37.30%) had diabetes. Compared with non-diabetic patients, those with diabetes were females, older, more hypertension, more hypercholesterolemia, more triglycerides, more diastolic blood pressure, less smokers and less low density lipoprotein. Among patients with diabetes, 242 diabetic patients (82.9%) were statin eligible, including 20 (6.90%) for having high serum levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >190 mg/dL, and 222 (76%) for being aged 40-75 years with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL. No patient had a calculated atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk score ≥7.5%. On the other hand, 393 non-diabetic patients (81.3%) were statin eligible, including 41 (8.50%) for having high serum levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >190 mg/dL, and 351 (72.80%) for being aged 40-75 years with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL.
UNASSIGNED: Based on the ACC/AHA guidelines, the majority of patients with diabetes admitted with first acute myocardial infarction would have been eligible for statin treatment if they have LDL-c >190 mg/dl or aged 40-75 years old and they have their LDL 70-189 mg/gl. More efforts should be taken for patients who are female, older than 50 years, hypertensive, elevated diastolic blood pressure have hypercholesterolemia, and elevated triglycerides because of their significant association with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for preventive statin treatment in patients with stable chest pain may be difficult as symptoms can be unspecific. It is unclear if coronary CT angiography (CTA)-detected coronary artery disease (CAD) can optimize statin prescription.
METHODS: In stable chest pain patients randomized to CTA in the PROMISE trial, statin eligibility was defined per 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction or unstable angina over 26 months median follow-up. Hazard ratios (HR) of non-obstructive (1-69% stenosis) and obstructive (≥70% stenosis) CAD for events were determined using Cox proportional hazard models. Calculated HR were then incorporated into the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equation (PCE) to revised ASCVD risk and assess re-classification of statin eligibility.
RESULTS: Among 3986 patients (60.5 ± 8.2 years; 51% female), 72.9% (2904/3986) were statin eligible. Event rates in statin-eligible vs. ineligible patients were 3.3% vs. 2.3% (HR = 1.4 (95% CI 0.9-2.2), p = 0.142). Although the proportion of statin-eligible patients increased with CAD severity, 54% without CAD were statin eligible. Incorporating information on CAD into PCE reclassified 12.7% of patients (1.3% towards statin, 11.4% towards no statin). Similar results were found in stratified analysis of statin naïve patients (reclassification of 13.9%, 1.0% towards statin, and 12.9% towards no statin). As a result, revised ASCVD risk improved model discrimination in all patients (c-statistic: 0.59 (95 %CI 0.55-0.62) vs. 0.52 (95 %CI 0.49-0.56); p 0.001), while reducing statin use by 10.1% (62.7% vs. 72.9% statin eligible, p 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In stable chest pain patients, integration of CAD into guideline recommendations was associated with greater accuracy to reclassify those at increased risk for incident events and a more efficient use of statins.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: New guidelines for cardiovascular disease risk assessment and statin eligibility have recently been published in the United States by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC-AHA). It is unknown how these guidelines compare with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) recommendations.
RESULTS: Using data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007-2011, we estimated the cardiovascular disease risk and proportion of the Canadian population, aged 40 to 75 years without cardiovascular disease, who would theoretically be eligible for statin treatment under both the CCS and ACC-AHA guidelines. The survey sample used (n=1975) represented 13.1 million community dwelling Canadians between the ages of 40 and 75 years. In comparing the CVD risk assessment methods, we found that calculated CVD risk was higher based on the CCS guidelines compared with the ACC-AHA guidelines. Despite this, a similar proportion and number of Canadians would be eligible for statin treatment under the 2 sets of recommendations. Some discordance in recommendations was found within subgroups of the population, with the CCS guidelines recommending more treatment for individuals who are younger, with a family history of CVD, or with chronic kidney disease. The ACC-AHA recommend more treatment for people who are older (age 60+ years). These results likely overestimate the treatment rate under both guidelines because, in primary prevention, a clinician-patient discussion must occur before treatment and determines uptake.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the ACC-AHA lipid treatment guidelines in Canada would not result in an increase in individuals eligible for statin treatment. In fact, the proportion of the population recommended for statin treatment would decrease slightly and be targeted at different subgroups of the population.