scholarly journals Personalizing cholesterol treatment recommendations for primary cardiovascular disease prevention

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashish Sarraju ◽  
Andrew Ward ◽  
Jiang Li ◽  
Areli Valencia ◽  
Latha Palaniappan ◽  
...  

AbstractStatin therapy is the cornerstone of preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), primarily by reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Optimal statin therapy decisions rely on shared decision making and may be uncertain for a given patient. In areas of clinical uncertainty, personalized approaches based on real-world data may help inform treatment decisions. We sought to develop a personalized statin recommendation approach for primary ASCVD prevention based on historical real-world outcomes in similar patients. Our retrospective cohort included adults from a large Northern California electronic health record (EHR) aged 40–79 years with no prior cardiovascular disease or statin use. The cohort was split into training and test sets. Weighted-K-nearest-neighbor (wKNN) regression models were used to identify historical EHR patients similar to a candidate patient. We modeled four statin decisions for each patient: none, low-intensity, moderate-intensity, and high-intensity. For each candidate patient, the algorithm recommended the statin decision that was associated with the greatest percentage reduction in LDL-C after 1 year in similar patients. The overall cohort consisted of 50,576 patients (age 54.6 ± 9.8 years) with 55% female, 48% non-Hispanic White, 32% Asian, and 7.4% Hispanic patients. Among 8383 test-set patients, 52%, 44%, and 4% were recommended high-, moderate-, and low-intensity statins, respectively, for a maximum predicted average 1-yr LDL-C reduction of 16.9%, 20.4%, and 14.9%, in each group, respectively. Overall, using aggregate EHR data, a personalized statin recommendation approach identified the statin intensity associated with the greatest LDL-C reduction in historical patients similar to a candidate patient. Recommendations included low- or moderate-intensity statins for maximum LDL-C lowering in nearly half the test set, which is discordant with their expected guideline-based efficacy. A data-driven personalized statin recommendation approach may inform shared decision making in areas of uncertainty, and highlight unexpected efficacy-effectiveness gaps.

Author(s):  
Bradley S. Lander ◽  
Dermot M. Phelan ◽  
Matthew W. Martinez ◽  
Elizabeth H. Dineen

Abstract Purpose of review This review will summarize the distinction between hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and exercise-induced cardiac remodeling (EICR), describe treatments of particular relevance to athletes with HCM, and highlight the evolution of recommendations for exercise and competitive sport participation relevant to individuals with HCM. Recent findings Whereas prior guidelines have excluded individuals with HCM from more than mild-intensity exercise, recent data show that moderate-intensity exercise improves functional capacity and indices of cardiac function and continuation of competitive sports may not be associated with worse outcomes. Moreover, recent studies of athletes with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) demonstrated a safer profile than previously understood. In this context, the updated American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HCM guidelines have increased focus on shared decision-making and liberalized restrictions on exercise and sport participation among individuals with HCM. Summary New data demonstrating the safety of exercise in individuals with HCM and in athletes with ICDs, in addition to a focus on shared decision-making, have led to the most updated guidelines easing restrictions on exercise and competitive athletics in this population. Further athlete-specific studies of HCM, especially in the context of emerging therapies such as mavacamten, are important to inform accurate risk stratification and eligibility recommendations.


Author(s):  
Victor Okunrintemi ◽  
Erica Spatz ◽  
Joseph Salami ◽  
Paul D Capua ◽  
Haider Warraich ◽  
...  

Background: While it is well established that significant health outcome disparities exist across patients of varying socio-economic status (SES) with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), disparities in patients’ healthcare experiences are not well investigated. We explore income level differences in four central tenets of patient-reported healthcare experience (access to care, provider communication, shared decision making and provider satisfaction) as measured by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey, in a nationally representative adult US population with established ASCVD. Methods: The study population consisted of 8223 individuals (age ≥ 18 years) representing 21.6 million with established ASCVD (self-reported or ICD-9 diagnosis) reporting a usual source of care in the 2010-2013 pooled Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) cohort. We assessed the responses for each item as: a) difficult access to care (always/almost difficult), b) ineffective communication and shared decision making (never/sometimes), and c) poor provider satisfaction (lowest quartile on a scale of 0-10). We examined the relationship between scores in the lowest quartile of each domain composite scores, derived using the weighted average response from each items scores, with patients’ SES, using the high-income group as reference. Results: Lower SES was consistently associated with greater perceived difficulties in access, poor provider-patient communication, less shared decision making, as well as lower provider satisfaction (Table). Participants classified as poor vs. high income were 47% (95% CI 1.17-1.83) more likely to report difficulty accessing care, 39% (95% CI 1.09-1.78) and 26% (95% CI 0.99-1.60) reported a higher likelihood of experiencing poor communication and shared decision making respectively, as well as a 66% (95% CI 1.31-2.11) higher likelihood of reporting lower provider satisfaction. Conclusion: Among patients with established ASCVD, significant SES disparities exist in all domains of patient reported healthcare experience quality of care metrics. Targeted policies focusing on improving communication, engagement and satisfaction are needed to enhance patient healthcare experience among high-risk vulnerable populations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 76-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron L. Baggish ◽  
Michael J. Ackerman ◽  
Margot Putukian ◽  
Rachel Lampert

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e025173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carissa Bonner ◽  
Pinika Patel ◽  
Michael Anthony Fajardo ◽  
Ruixuan Zhuang ◽  
Lyndal Trevena

ObjectivesRecent guideline changes for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention medication have resulted in calls to implement shared decision-making rather than arbitrary treatment thresholds. Less attention has been paid to existing tools that could facilitate this. Decision aids are well-established tools that enable shared decision-making and have been shown to improve CVD prevention adherence. However, it is unknown how many CVD decision aids are publicly available for patients online, what their quality is like and whether they are suitable for patients with lower health literacy, for whom the burden of CVD is greatest. This study aimed to identify and evaluate all English language, publicly available online CVD prevention decision aids.DesignSystematic review of public websites in August to November 2016 using an environmental scan methodology, with updated evaluation in April 2018. The decision aids were evaluated based on: (1) suitability for low health literacy populations (understandability, actionability and readability); and (2) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS).Primary outcome measuresUnderstandability and actionability using the validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P scale), readability using Gunning–Fog and Flesch–Kincaid indices and quality using IPDAS V.3 and V.4.ResultsA total of 25 unique decision aids were identified. On the PEMAT-P scale, the decision aids scored well on understandability (mean 87%) but not on actionability (mean 61%). Readability was also higher than recommended levels (mean Gunning–Fog index=10.1; suitable for grade 10 students). Four decision aids met criteria to be considered a decision aid (ie, met IPDAS qualifying criteria) and one sufficiently minimised major bias (ie, met IPDAS certification criteria).ConclusionsPublicly available CVD prevention decision aids are not suitable for low literacy populations and only one met international standards for certification. Given that patients with lower health literacy are at increased risk of CVD, this urgently needs to be addressed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lindh ◽  
Jonas Banefelt ◽  
Kathleen M Fox ◽  
Sara Hallberg ◽  
Ming-Hui Tai ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims This study aimed to estimate the rate of cardiovascular (CV) events in the real world in patients at high risk of recurrent CV events similar to the FOURIER trial population. Methods and results A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using Swedish national registers from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2015. Patients in the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevalent cohort met the FOURIER-like inclusion criteria, including treatment with high/moderate-intensity statins, on 1 July 2006. Additionally, two cohorts defined by diagnosis of incident ischaemic stroke (IS) and incident myocardial infarction (MI), meeting the FOURIER-like inclusion criteria were followed from date of diagnosis. Event rates were calculated for the hard major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composite: MI, IS, and CV death; and the ASCVD composite: MI, IS, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and CV death. Approximately half of patients experienced a CV event (ASCVD composite) during follow-up. The MACE composite rates/100 person-years were 6.3, 11.9, and 12.3 in the ASCVD prevalent (n = 54 992), MI incident (n = 45 895), and IS incident (n = 36 134) cohorts, respectively. The ASCVD composite rates/100 person-years were 7.0, 21.7, and 12.9 in the ASCVD prevalent, MI incident, and IS incident cohorts, respectively. The multiple-event MACE composite rates/100 person-years were 8.5 (ASCVD prevalent cohort), 15.4 (MI incident cohort), and 14.4 (IS incident cohort). Conclusion In this real-world setting, CV event rates were high in all studied cohorts. In particular, the MACE composite rates were two to three times higher than in the FOURIER clinical trial, indicating a substantial disease burden despite treatment with moderate or high-intensity statins.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document