Shorter Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Older Adults After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for older adults after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain because they are simultaneously at higher risk for both ischemic and bleeding events. Objective: To investigate the association of abbreviated DAPT with adverse clinical events among older adults after PCI. Data Sources: The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 9, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing any 2 of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT were included if they reported results for adults aged 65 years or older or 75 years or older. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used to abstract data and assess data quality. Risk ratios for each duration of DAPT were calculated with alternation of the reference group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding. Results: In 14 randomized clinical trials comprising 19 102 older adults, no differences were observed in the risks of NACE or MACE for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT. However, 3 months of DAPT was associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with 6 months of DAPT (relative risk [RR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.84]) and 12 months of DAPT (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]) among older adults. One month of DAPT was also associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with 6 months of DAPT (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of different durations of DAPT for older adults after PCI, an abbreviated DAPT duration was associated with a lower risk of bleeding without any concomitant increase in the risk of MACE or NACE despite the concern for higher-risk coronary anatomy and comorbidities among older adults. This study, which represents the first network meta-analysis of this shortened treatment for older adults, suggests that clinicians may consider abbreviating DAPT for older adults.

Diagnosing Coronary Artery Disease in the Patient Presenting with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: The Role of Anatomic versus Functional Testing.

There are unique advantages and disadvantages to functional versus anatomic testing in the work-up of patients who present with symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease. Evaluation of these individuals starts with an assessment of pre-test probability, which guides subsequent testing decisions. The choice between anatomic and functional testing depends on this pre-test probability. In general, anatomic testing has particular utility among younger individuals and women; while functional testing can be helpful to rule-in ischemia and guide revascularization decisions. Ultimately, selection of the most appropriate test should be individualized to the patient and clinical scenario.

Closing the Last Mile Gap in Access to Multimodality Imaging in Rural Settings: Design of the Imaging Core of the Risk Underlying Rural Areas Longitudinal Study.

Achieving optimal cardiovascular health in rural populations can be challenging for several reasons including decreased access to care with limited availability of imaging modalities, specialist physicians, and other important health care team members. Therefore, innovative solutions are needed to optimize health care and address cardiovascular health disparities in rural areas. Mobile examination units can bring imaging technology to underserved or remote communities with limited access to health care services. Mobile examination units can be equipped with a wide array of assessment tools and multiple imaging modalities such as computed tomography scanning and echocardiography. The detailed structural assessment of cardiovascular and lung pathology, as well as the detection of extracardiac pathology afforded by computed tomography imaging combined with the functional and hemodynamic assessments acquired by echocardiography, yield deep phenotyping of heart and lung disease for populations historically underrepresented in epidemiological studies. Moreover, by bringing the mobile examination unit to local communities, innovative approaches are now possible including engagement with local professionals to perform these imaging assessments, thereby augmenting local expertise and experience. However, several challenges exist before mobile examination unit-based examinations can be effectively integrated into the rural health care setting including standardizing acquisition protocols, maintaining consistent image quality, and addressing ethical and privacy considerations. Herein, we discuss the potential importance of cardiac multimodality imaging to improve cardiovascular health in rural regions, outline the emerging experience in this field, highlight important current challenges, and offer solutions based on our experience in the RURAL (Risk Underlying Rural Areas Longitudinal) cohort study.

Should We "RESPECT EPA" More Now? EPA and DHA for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been much debate surrounding the use of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), for cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent trials of EPA and DHA have offered conflicting evidence. Some demonstrate reduction in CV risk using EPA alone in select populations. Others have demonstrated no benefit, with potential for side effects, such as new-onset atrial fibrillation. Both EPA and DHA have favorable impact on lipids and inflammation, suggesting some biological plausibility for CV risk reduction. However, clinical trials of these agents have produced mixed results. Based on available evidence, EPA may work better for CV risk than DHA and EPA combined. The benefit of EPA seems to be dose dependent, though higher doses may have more side effects. Further research is needed to define the role of EPA and DHA in the landscape of CV risk reduction.

Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization. Objective: To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT. Interventions: PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use. Results: A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

Deferred Testing in Stable Outpatients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend deferral of testing for symptomatic people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and low pretest probability. To our knowledge, no randomized trial has prospectively evaluated such a strategy. Objective: To assess process of care and health outcomes in people identified as minimal risk for CAD when testing is deferred. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, pragmatic effectiveness trial included prespecified subgroup analysis of the PRECISE trial at 65 North American and European sites. Participants identified as minimal risk by the validated PROMISE minimal risk score (PMRS) were included. Intervention: Randomization to a precision strategy using the PMRS to assign those with minimal risk to deferred testing and others to coronary computed tomography angiography with selective computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve, or to usual testing (stress testing or catheterization with PMRS masked). Randomization was stratified by PMRS risk. Main Outcome: Composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or catheterization without obstructive CAD through 12 months. Results: Among 2103 participants, 422 were identified as minimal risk (20%) and randomized to deferred testing (n = 214) or usual testing (n = 208). Mean age (SD) was 46 (8.6) years; 304 were women (72%). During follow-up, 138 of those randomized to deferred testing never had testing (64%), whereas 76 had a downstream test (36%) (at median [IQR] 48 [15-78] days) for worsening (30%), uncontrolled (10%), or new symptoms (6%), or changing clinician preference (19%) or participant preference (10%). Results were normal for 96% of these tests. The primary end point occurred in 2 deferred testing (0.9%) and 13 usual testing participants (6.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66; P = .01). No death or MI was observed in the deferred testing participants, while 1 noncardiovascular death and 1 MI occurred in the usual testing group. Two participants (0.9%) had catheterizations without obstructive CAD in the deferred testing group and 12 (5.8%) with usual testing (P = .02). At baseline, 70% of participants had frequent angina and there was similar reduction of frequent angina to less than 20% at 12 months in both groups. Conclusion and Relevance: In symptomatic participants with suspected CAD, identification of minimal risk by the PMRS guided a strategy of initially deferred testing. The strategy was safe with no observed adverse outcome events, fewer catheterizations without obstructive CAD, and similar symptom relief compared with usual testing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

In statin-intolerant adults with, or at risk for, CV disease, bempedoic acid reduced MACE at a median 41 mo.

SOURCE CITATION: Nissen SE, Lincoff MA, Brennan D, et al; CLEAR Outcomes Investigators. Bempedoic acid and cardiovascular outcomes in statin-intolerant patients. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1353-1364. 36876740.

Contemporary patterns of lipoprotein(a) testing and associated clinical care and outcomes.

Objective: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. The objective of this analysis was to determine how Lp(a) testing is used in clinical practice in comparison with low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing alone, and to determine whether elevated Lp(a) level is associated with subsequent initiation of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and incident cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods: This is an observational cohort study, based on lab tests administered between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019. We used electronic health record (EHR) data from 11 United States health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). We created two cohorts for comparison: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. The primary exposure was the presence of an Lp(a) or LDL-C test result. In the Lp(a) cohort, we used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) results in mass units (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and molar units (<125, 125-250, > 250nmol/L) and initiation of LLT within 3 months. We used multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate these Lp(a) levels and time to composite CV hospitalization, including hospitalization for myocardial infarction, revascularization and ischemic stroke. Results: Overall, 20,551 patients had Lp(a) test results and 2,584,773 patients had LDL-C test results (82,204 included in the matched LDL-C cohort). Compared with the LDL-C cohort, the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had prevalent ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) and multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of subsequent LLT initiation. Elevated Lp(a) reported in mass units was also associated with subsequent composite CV hospitalization [aHR (95% CI): Lp(a) 50-100mg/dL 1.25 (1.02-1.53), p<0.03, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL 1.23 (1.08-1.40), p<0.01]. Conclusion: Lp(a) testing is relatively infrequent in health systems across the U.S. As new therapies for Lp(a) emerge, improved patient and provider education is needed to increase awareness of the utility of this risk marker.

Coordinating Cardiology clinics randomized trial of interventions to improve outcomes (COORDINATE) - Diabetes: rationale and design.

Several medications that are proven to reduce cardiovascular events exist for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, however they are substantially underused in clinical practice. Clinician, patient, and system-level barriers all contribute to these gaps in care; yet, there is a paucity of high quality, rigorous studies evaluating the role of interventions to increase utilization. The COORDINATE-Diabetes trial randomized 42 cardiology clinics across the United States to either a multifaceted, site-specific intervention focused on evidence-based care for patients with T2DM or standard of care. The multifaceted intervention comprised the development of an interdisciplinary care pathway for each clinic, audit-and-feedback tools and educational outreach, in addition to patient-facing tools. The primary outcome is the proportion of individuals with T2DM prescribed three key classes of evidence-based medications (high-intensity statin, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and either a sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and will be assessed at least 6 months after participant enrollment. COORDINATE-Diabetes aims to identify strategies that improve the implementation and adoption of evidence-based therapies.

In-Hospital Virtual Peer-to-Peer Consultation to Increase Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves clinical outcomes and quality of life. Optimizing GDMT in the hospital is associated with greater long-term use in HFrEF. This study aimed to describe the efficacy of a multidisciplinary virtual HF intervention on GDMT optimization among patients with HFrEF admitted for any cause. METHODS: In this pilot randomized, controlled study, consecutive patients with HFrEF admitted to noncardiology medicine services for any cause were identified at a large academic tertiary care hospital between May to September 2021. Major exclusions were end-stage renal disease, hemodynamic instability, concurrent COVID-19 infection, and current enrollment in hospice care. Patients were randomized to a clinician-level virtual peer-to-peer consult intervention providing GDMT recommendations and information on medication costs versus usual care. Primary end points included (1) proportion of patients with new GDMT initiation or use and (2) changes to HF optimal medical therapy scores which included target dosing (range, 0-9). RESULTS: Of 242 patients identified, 91 (38%) were eligible and randomized to intervention (N=52) or usual care (N=39). Baseline characteristics were similar between intervention and usual care (mean age 63 versus 67 years, 23% versus 26% female, 46% versus 49% Black, mean ejection fraction 33% versus 31%). GDMT use on admission was also similar. There were greater proportions of patients with GDMT initiation or continuation with the intervention compared with usual care. After adjusting for optimal medical therapy score on admission, changes to optimal medical therapy score at discharge were higher for the intervention group compared with usual care (+0.44 versus -0.31, absolute difference +0.75, adjusted estimate 0.86±0.42; P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Among eligible patients with HFrEF hospitalized for any cause on noncardiology services, a multidisciplinary pilot virtual HF consultation increased new GDMT initiation and dose optimization at discharge.

Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Hospitalized Heart Failure Outcomes in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with worse health outcomes, yet its relationship with in-hospital heart failure (HF) outcomes and quality metrics are underexplored. We examined the association between socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage and in-hospital HF outcomes for patients from diverse neighborhoods in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. METHODS: SES-disadvantage scores were derived from geocoded US census data using a validated algorithm, which incorporated household income, home value, rent, education, and employment. We examined the association between SES-disadvantage quintiles with all-cause in-hospital mortality, adjusting for demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 593 053 patients hospitalized for HF between 2017 and 2020, 321 314 (54%) had residential ZIP Codes recorded. Patients from the most compared with least disadvantaged neighborhoods were younger (mean age 67 versus 76 years), more often Black (42% versus 9%) or Hispanic (14% versus 5%), and had higher comorbidity burden. Demographic-adjusted length of stay increased by ≈1.5 hours with each increment in worsening SES-disadvantage quintiles. Adjusted-mortality odds ratios increased with worsening SES-disadvantage quintiles (Ptrend=0.003), and was 28% higher (adjusted OR=1.28 [1.12-1.48]) for the most compared with least disadvantaged neighborhood groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients hospitalized for HF from disadvantaged neighborhoods were younger and more often Black or Hispanic. SES disadvantage was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Further research is needed to characterize care delivery patterns in disadvantaged neighborhoods and to address social determinants of health among patients hospitalized for HF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02693509.

In ASCVD, moderate-intensity statin + ezetimibe was noninferior to high-intensity statin alone at 3 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Kim BK, Hong SJ, Lee YJ, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RACING): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 202;400:380-90. 35863366.

Imaging Considerations and Clinical Implications of Mitral Annular Disjunction.

Mitral annular disjunction is increasingly recognized as an important anatomic feature of mitral valve disease. The presence of mitral annular disjunction, defined as separation between the left atrial wall at the point of mitral valve insertion and the left ventricular free wall, has been associated with increased degeneration of the mitral valve and increased incidence of sudden cardiac death. The clinical importance of this entity necessitates standard reporting on cardiovascular imaging reports if patients are to receive adequate risk stratification and management. We provide a narrative review of the literature pertaining to mitral annular disjunction, its clinical implications, and areas needing further research.

Recommendations for use of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with elevated LDL-C.

SOURCE CITATION: Hao Q, Aertgeerts B, Guyatt G, et al. PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations. BMJ. 2022;377:e069066. 35508320.

Eradicating Atherosclerosis: Should We Start Statins at Younger Ages and at Lower LDL-Cs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given the increasing burden of cardiovascular disease, we review the literature for earlier initiation of statin therapy at younger ages and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, with the goal of preventing the development of atherosclerosis prior to clinical events. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a rising prevalence of dyslipidemia among younger adults. Although guidelines offer recommendations for adults over 40, there is little guidance for the management of younger adults with moderately elevated LDL-C levels. Earlier and more aggressive statin use may slow progression, or even halt atherosclerosis, and may likewise be beneficial and cost-effective on a population level. Further research is needed to define the exact age and LDL-C level at which to start statin therapy. Until then, more detailed risk stratification with lab testing and imaging should be used to identify younger adults at the highest risk.

Guidelines for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: JACC Guideline Comparison.

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. These high-risk patients benefit from aggressive risk factor management, with blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol treatment, glycemic control, kidney protection, and lifestyle intervention. There are several recommendation and guideline documents across cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, and general medicine professional societies from the United States and Europe with recommendations for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although there are some noteworthy differences, particularly in risk stratification, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and blood pressure treatment targets, and the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, overall there is considerable alignment across recommendations from different professional societies.

Inclusion and diversity in clinical trials: Actionable steps to drive lasting change.

BACKGROUND: Improving diversity in clinical trials is essential in order to produce generalizable results. Although the importance of representation has become increasingly recognized, identifying strategies to approach this work remains elusive. This article reviews the proceedings of a multi-stakeholder conference about the current state of diversity in clinical trials and outlines actionable steps for improvement. METHODS: Conference attendees included representatives from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), practicing clinical investigators, pharmaceutical and device companies, community-based organizations, data analytics companies, and patient advocacy groups. At this virtual event, attendees were asked to consider key questions around best practices for engagement of underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Community engagement is an integral part of recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups. Decentralization of sites and use of digital tools can enhance the accessibility of clinical research. Finally, improving representation among investigators and clinical research staff may translate to diverse clinical trial participants. CONCLUSION: Improving diversity in clinical trials is an ethical and scientific imperative, which requires a multifaceted approach.

In CV disease, GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CV mortality.

SOURCE CITATION: Kanie T, Mizuno A, Takaoka Y, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;10:CD013650. 34693515.

Use of Lipid-, Blood Pressure-, and Glucose-Lowering Pharmacotherapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Importance: Based on contemporary estimates in the US, evidence-based therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction are generally underused among patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Objective: To determine the use of evidence-based cardiovascular preventive therapies in a broad US population with diabetes and ASCVD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used health system-level aggregated data within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, including 12 health systems. Participants included patients with diabetes and established ASCVD (ie, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease) between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from September 2020 until January 2021. Exposures: One or more health care encounters in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient characteristics by prescription of any of the following key evidence-based therapies: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). Results: The overall cohort included 324 706 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 68.1 (12.2) years and 144 169 (44.4%) women and 180 537 (55.6%) men. A total of 59 124 patients (18.2% ) were Black, and 41 470 patients (12.8%) were Latinx. Among 205 885 patients with specialized visit data from the prior year, 17 971 patients (8.7%) visited an endocrinologist, 54 330 patients (26.4%) visited a cardiologist, and 154 078 patients (74.8%) visited a primary care physician. Overall, 190 277 patients (58.6%) were prescribed a statin, but only 88 426 patients (26.8%) were prescribed a high-intensity statin; 147 762 patients (45.5%) were prescribed an ACEI or ARB, 12 724 patients (3.9%) were prescribed a GLP-1RA, and 8989 patients (2.8%) were prescribed an SGLT2I. Overall, 14 918 patients (4.6%) were prescribed all 3 classes of therapies, and 138 173 patients (42.6%) were prescribed none. Patients who were prescribed a high-intensity statin were more likely to be men (59.9% [95% CI, 59.6%-60.3%] of patients vs 55.6% [95% CI, 55.4%-55.8%] of patients), have coronary atherosclerotic disease (79.9% [95% CI, 79.7%-80.2%] of patients vs 73.0% [95% CI, 72.8%-73.3%] of patients) and more likely to have seen a cardiologist (40.0% [95% CI, 39.6%-40.4%] of patients vs 26.4% [95% CI, 26.2%-26.6%] of patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort of US patients with diabetes and ASCVD, fewer than 1 in 20 patients were prescribed all 3 evidence-based therapies, defined as a high-intensity statin, either an ACEI or ARB, and either an SGLT2I and/or a GLP-1RA. These findings suggest that multifaceted interventions are needed to overcome barriers to the implementation of evidence-based therapies and facilitate their optimal use.