Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of risk factors in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Background: Effective control of risk factors in patients with ASCVD is important to reduce recurrent cardiovascular events. However, many ASCVD patients do not have their risk factors controlled, and this may have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated risk factor control among 24,760 ASCVD patients who had at least 1 outpatient encounter both pre-pandemic and during the first year of the pandemic. Risk factors were uncontrolled if the blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, HgbA1c ≥ 7 for diabetic patients, and patients were current smokers. Results: During the pandemic, many patients had their risk factors unmonitored. BP control worsened (BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg, 64.2 vs 65.7%; p = 0.01), while lipid management improved with more patients on a high-intensity statin (38.9 vs 43.9%; p<0.001) and more achieving an LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, less patients were smoking (7.4 vs 6.7%; p<0.001), and diabetic control was unchanged pre vs during the pandemic. Black (OR 1.53 [1.02-2.31]) and younger aged patients (OR 1.008 [1.001-1.015]) were significantly more likely to have missing or uncontrolled risk factors during the pandemic. Conclusions: During the pandemic risk factors were more likely to be unmonitored. While measured blood pressure control worsened, lipid control and smoking improved. Although some cardiovascular risk factor control improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, overall control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with ASCVD was suboptimal, especially in Black and younger patients. This puts many ASCVD patients at increased risk of a recurrent cardiovascular event.

Apolipoprotein B: An essential cholesterol metric for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Moving the Needle on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Heart Failure with Influenza Vaccination.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The interplay between viral respiratory infections and cardiovascular disease has been most comprehensively researched using seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses as case studies. Here, we summarize the latest international observational research and clinical trials that examined the association between influenza, influenza vaccines, and cardiovascular disease, while contextualizing their findings within those of landmark studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Most recent observational literature found that one in eight adults hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza infection experienced an acute cardiovascular event. The latest meta-analysis of the cardioprotective effects of influenza vaccine found a 25% reduced risk of all-cause death. There are four large cardiovascular outcome trials assessing the cardioprotective effects of different influenza vaccine strategies. Among these, the INVESTED study showed there is no significant difference between the high-dose trivalent and standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccines in reducing all-cause mortality or cardiopulmonary hospitalizations in a high-risk patient group with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Persons with cardiovascular disease represent a high priority group for viral vaccines; hence, using robust evidence to increase vaccine confidence among patients and practitioners is integral as we prepare for a possible influenza resurgence in the coming years.

Same evidence, varying viewpoints: Three questions illustrating important differences between United States and European cholesterol guideline recommendations.

In 2018, the AHA/ACC Multisociety Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol was released. Less than one year later, the 2019 ESC/EAS Dyslipidemia Guideline was published. While both provide important recommendations for managing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk through lipid management, differences exist. Prior to the publication of both guidelines, important randomized clinical trial data emerged on non-statin lipid lowering therapy and ASCVD risk reduction. To illustrate important differences in guideline recommendations, we use this data to help answer three key questions: 1) Are ASCVD event rates similar in high-risk primary and stable secondary prevention? 2) Does imaging evidence of subclinical atherosclerosis justify aggressive use of statin and non-statin therapy (if needed) to reduce LDL-C levels below 55 â€‹mg/dL as recommended in the European Guideline? 3) Do LDL-C levels below 70 â€‹mg/dL achieve a large absolute risk reduction in secondary ASCVD prevention? The US guideline prioritizes both the added efficacy and cost implications of non-statin therapy, which limits intensive therapy to individuals with the highest risk of ASCVD. The European approach broadens the eligibility criteria by incorporating goals of therapy in both primary and secondary prevention. The current cost and access constraints of healthcare worldwide, especially amidst a COVID-19 pandemic, makes the European recommendations more challenging to implement. By restricting non-statin therapy to a subgroup of high- and, in particular, very high-risk individuals, the US guideline provides primary and secondary ASCVD prevention recommendations that are more affordable and attainable. Ultimately, finding a common ground for both guidelines rests on our ability to design trials that assess cost-effectiveness in addition to efficacy and safety.