-
1.
Cholesterol and inflammatory risk: Insights from secondary and primary prevention.
Stock, JK
Atherosclerosis. 2019;:192-193
-
2.
Coronary artery calcium scoring for individualized cardiovascular risk estimation in important patient subpopulations after the 2019 AHA/ACC primary prevention guidelines.
Dzaye, O, Dudum, R, Reiter-Brennan, C, Kianoush, S, Tota-Maharaj, R, Cainzos-Achirica, M, Blaha, MJ
Progress in cardiovascular diseases. 2019;(5):423-430
Abstract
The 2018 and 2019 American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend consideration of so-called "risk-enhancing factors" in borderline to intermediate risk individuals. These include high-risk race/ethnicity (e.g. South Asian origin), chronic kidney disease, a family history of premature ASCVD, the metabolic syndrome, chronic inflammatory disorders (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriasis, or chronic human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]), and conditions specific to women, among others. Studies suggest, however, that risk may be highly heterogeneous within these subgroups. The AHA/ACC guidelines also recommend consideration of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring for further risk assessment in borderline to intermediate risk individuals in whom management is uncertain. Although the combination of risk enhancing factors and CAC burden (together with Pooled Cohort estimates) may lead to more accurate ASCVD risk assessment, few publications have closely examined the interplay between risk enhancing factors and CAC scoring for personalized risk estimation. Our aim is to review the relevant literature in this area. Although further research is clearly needed, CAC assessment seems a highly valuable option to inform individualized ASCVD risk management in these important, often highly heterogeneous patient subgroups.
-
3.
Prospects for the Primary Prevention of Myocardial Infarction and Stroke.
Caldwell, M, Martinez, L, Foster, JG, Sherling, D, Hennekens, CH
Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. 2019;(3):207-214
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD), principally myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, is the leading clinical and public health problem in the United States and is rapidly becoming so worldwide. Their primary prevention is promising, in theory, but difficult to achieve in practice. The principal modalities that have demonstrated efficacy include therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLCs) and adjunctive drug therapies under the guidance of the health-care provider and tailored to the individual patient. The prevention and treatment of the pandemic of overweight and obesity and lack of regular physical activity, both of which are alarmingly common in the United States, prevention and treatment of hypertension, avoidance and cessation of cigarette smoking, adoption and maintenance of a healthy diet, and avoidance of heavy alcohol consumption all have proven benefits in decreasing the risks of a first MI and stroke as well as other clinical manifestations of CVD. Although adoption of TLCs would avoid the need for adjunctive drug therapies in many primary prevention subjects, this strategy is difficult to achieve or maintain for most and may be insufficient for many, especially those at high risk with metabolic syndrome. The criteria for metabolic syndrome, affecting over 40% of the adult population older than 40 in the United States, include overweight or obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and insulin resistance, a precursor of diabetes. The adjunctive therapies of proven benefit in the primary prevention of MI and stroke include statins, blood pressure medications, aspirin, and drugs to treat insulin resistance and hyperglycemia. Fortunately, even for patients who prefer prescription of pills to proscription of harmful lifestyles, these drug therapies still have net benefits. The adoption and maintenance of TLCs and adjunctive drug therapies into clinical practice will reduce both the incidence of and mortality from a first MI and stroke as well as other major clinical manifestations of CVD.
-
4.
2018 Cholesterol Guidelines: Key Topics in Primary Prevention.
Clark, D, Virani, SS
Current atherosclerosis reports. 2019;(5):17
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The 2018 American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) cholesterol guidelines are a comprehensive update providing recommendations for management of patients with high blood cholesterol based on the best available evidence. This review highlights key topics clinicians need to know for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) based on the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS The guidelines include a broad framework for risk estimation and management for primary prevention of ASCVD. Additional tools to refine risk assessment and guide management in primary prevention are outlined, including the use of risk-enhancing factors and coronary artery calcium score measurement. Lifestyle modification, appropriate risk assessment, and the use of proven pharmacologic therapies are essential for effective primary prevention as outlined in the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines.
-
5.
Primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease: populations, individuals, and health professionals.
Gupta, R, Wood, DA
Lancet (London, England). 2019;(10199):685-696
Abstract
Ischaemic heart disease has a multifactorial aetiology and can be prevented from developing in populations primordially, and in individuals at high risk by primary prevention. The primordial approach focuses on social determinants of health in populations: political, economic, and social factors, principally unplanned urbanisation, illiteracy, poverty, and working and living conditions. Implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals can lead to major improvements in cardiovascular health, and adequate health-care financing and universal health care are important for achieving these goals. Population-level interventions should focus on tobacco control, promotion of healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts), curbing unhealthy foods (saturated fats, trans fats, refined carbohydrates, excessive salt, and alcohol), promotion of physical activity in everyday living, and control of ambient and indoor pollution. At the individual level, identification of people at high multifactorial risk and guideline-driven management of hypertension, LDL cholesterol, and diabetes is required. Strategies to improve adherence to healthy lifestyles and drug therapies are essential and can be implemented at health system, health care, and patient levels with use of education, technology, and personalised approaches. Improving quality of medical education with a focus on ischaemic heart disease prevention for physicians, nurses, allied health workers, and the public is required.
-
6.
2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Part 1, Lifestyle and Behavioral Factors.
Arnett, DK, Khera, A, Blumenthal, RS
JAMA cardiology. 2019;(10):1043-1044
-
7.
Omega-3, omega-6, and total dietary polyunsaturated fat for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Brown, TJ, Brainard, J, Song, F, Wang, X, Abdelhamid, A, Hooper, L, ,
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2019;:l4697
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6, and total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on diabetes diagnosis and glucose metabolism. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and trials in relevant systematic reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing effects of increasing α-linolenic acid, long chain omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA, which collected data on diabetes diagnoses, fasting glucose or insulin, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and/or homoeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). DATA SYNTHESIS Statistical analysis included random effects meta-analyses using relative risk and mean difference, and sensitivity analyses. Funnel plots were examined and subgrouping assessed effects of intervention type, replacement, baseline risk of diabetes and use of antidiabetes drugs, trial duration, and dose. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. RESULTS 83 randomised controlled trials (mainly assessing effects of supplementary long chain omega-3) were included; 10 were at low summary risk of bias. Long chain omega-3 had little or no effect on likelihood of diagnosis of diabetes (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.17; 58 643 participants, 3.7% developed diabetes) or measures of glucose metabolism (HbA1c mean difference -0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.07% to 0.04%; plasma glucose 0.04, 0.02 to 0.07, mmol/L; fasting insulin 1.02, -4.34 to 6.37, pmol/L; HOMA-IR 0.06, -0.21 to 0.33). A suggestion of negative outcomes was observed when dose of supplemental long chain omega-3 was above 4.4 g/d. Effects of α-linolenic acid, omega-6, and total PUFA on diagnosis of diabetes were unclear (as the evidence was of very low quality), but little or no effect on measures of glucose metabolism was seen, except that increasing α-linolenic acid may increase fasting insulin (by about 7%). No evidence was found that the omega-3/omega-6 ratio is important for diabetes or glucose metabolism. CONCLUSIONS This is the most extensive systematic review of trials to date to assess effects of polyunsaturated fats on newly diagnosed diabetes and glucose metabolism, including previously unpublished data following contact with authors. Evidence suggests that increasing omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA has little or no effect on prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42017064110.
-
8.
Association of Clinician Knowledge and Statin Beliefs With Statin Therapy Use and Lipid Levels (A Survey of US Practice in the PALM Registry).
Lowenstern, A, Navar, AM, Li, S, Virani, SS, Goldberg, AC, Louie, MJ, Lee, LV, Peterson, ED, Wang, TY
The American journal of cardiology. 2019;(7):1011-1018
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Guideline implementation requires clinician knowledge but may be influenced by pre-existing beliefs and biases. We assessed the association of these clinician factors with lipid management following the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines. In the PALM registry, 774 clinicians completed a survey to assess their knowledge of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, belief in statin benefit, and statin safety concerns. The association of these factors with statin use, statin dosing, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed in the 6,839 patients treated by these clinicians between May and November 2015. Overall, 63.9% of clinicians responded to at least 3 out of 4 hypothetical scenarios in concordance with guideline recommendations (good tested knowledge), 88.4% reported belief in statin benefit, and 15.4% raised concerns about statin safety. Belief in statin benefit was more prevalent among cardiologists, who represented 48.8% of the clinicians surveyed, and concerns regarding statin safety were higher among noncardiologists and clinicians in an academic setting. Guideline knowledge was not associated with a difference in statin use (74.1% vs 73.8%, p = 0.84) and achievement of LDL-C level <100 mg/dl (54.7% vs 52.4%, p = 0.07). However, patients treated by clinicians who reported belief in statin benefit were more likely to receive guideline-recommended statin intensity (41.9% vs 36.9%, p = 0.03), whereas patients treated by clinicians expressing statin safety concerns were less likely receive statins of at least guideline-recommended intensity (36.8% vs 42.5%, p = 0.001) and to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dl (44.1% vs 56.1%, p <0.001); the latter persisted after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.89). In conclusion, clinician beliefs regarding benefits and risks of statins were significantly associated with guideline adherence and patients' achieved LDL-C levels, whereas clinician knowledge of guideline recommendations was not.
-
9.
Evidence to prevent childhood obesity: The continuum of preconception, pregnancy, and postnatal interventions.
Bull, F, Willumsen, J
Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. 2019;:3-4
-
10.
Prevention: From the cradle to the grave and beyond.
Dendale, P, Scherrenberg, M, Sivakova, O, Frederix, I
European journal of preventive cardiology. 2019;(5):507-511
Abstract
Present cardiac prevention mainly focuses on risk reduction later in life, and focuses also mainly on reducing risk factors for coronary heart disease. However, multiple studies have gathered evidence that the development risk of cardiovascular disease starts early in life and that even preconceptional influences play an important role in lifetime risk. Therefore, the importance of well-timed prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease is well established. In this article, we discuss different risk factors for future cardiac disease, and how we can respond to lesser known cardiac risk factors in the different stages of life.