Coronavirus disease 2019: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis on cardiovascular biomarkers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Preventive cardiology has an important role to play in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been observed to have a greater mortality impact on subgroups of people in the population who are deemed to be at higher medical disease risk. Individuals with cardiovascular disorders are one such COVID-19-associated high-mortality risk group. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence is accumulating that COVID-19 infection may worsen an individual's future cardiovascular health, and, preinfection/postinfection cardiovascular evaluation may be warranted to determine if progressive cardiovascular damage has occurred because of COVID-19 infection. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, focusing on the association between COVID-19 severity and cardiac-specific biomarkers, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), troponin T (TnT)/troponin I (TnI), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase, and creatine kinase isoenzyme (CK-MB). TnT had the highest odds ratio or OR (11.83) indicating the greatest association with COVID-19 severity, followed by NT-proBNP (7.57), TnI (6.32), LDH (4.79), D-dimer (4.10), creatine kinase (3.43), and CK-MB (3.35). All of the biomarkers studied were significantly correlated with COVID-19 severity including severe symptoms, ICU care, and mortality (P < 0.0001, except P < 0.01 for CK-MB). SUMMARY: COVID-19 infection results in short-term and long-term disease risk that may involve adverse cardiovascular health issues including heart failure. Cardiac-specific biomarkers appear to identify a subset of COVID-19 patients who have the highest risk of an adverse medical outcome. Preventive cardiology has an important role to play in the COVID-19 pandemic.The risk/benefit analysis of maintaining or eliminating the use of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) medications deserves further investigation.

Cardiovascular Risk Factor Reduction in First Responders Resulting From an Individualized Lifestyle and Blood Test Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that a lifestyle program would improve risk factors linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD) in first responders. METHODS: A 1-year cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial in 10 cities. Participants were 175 first responders, with increased waist circumference and/or low levels of large (α1) high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles. The intervention group received personalized online tools and access to telephonic coaching sessions. RESULTS: At 1 year the intervention significantly reduced body weight (P = 0.004) and waist circumference (P = 0.002), increased α1 HDL (P = 0.01), and decreased triglyceride (P = 0.005) and insulin concentrations (P = 0.03). Program adherence was associated with weight loss (P = 0.0005) and increases in α1 HDL (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In first responders, a personalized lifestyle intervention significantly improved CVD risk factors in proportion to program adherence. Changes in large HDL particles were more sensitive indicators of lifestyle changes than HDL-cholesterol measurement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03322046.

Niacin and heart disease prevention: Engraving its tombstone is a mistake.

Niacin (nicotinic acid) has been used for primary and secondary coronary heart disease prevention for over 40 years. Until recently clinical trials incorporating niacin as part of an intervention strategy consistently demonstrated reduction in clinical events and lesion improvement, including ≥6% absolute mortality reduction. Two large clinical event trials in 2011 (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes) and 2014 (Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events) concluded that niacin added to statin therapy did not provide clinical event benefit over statin alone. This has prompted some individuals to call for an end to the use of niacin in statin-treated patients and the US Food and Drug Administration to halt marketing of statin/niacin combination tablets. There are significant differences between the earlier clinical trials that revealed cardiovascular benefit of niacin and the 2 trials that failed to demonstrate a benefit. These differences include dyslipidemia types, niacin formulation, dosing, and timing. In general, the patient population that benefits the most from incorporating niacin in their treatment regimen can be defined by elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The niacin formulation and dose should be capable of achieving adequate lipoprotein change. Mealtime dosing of niacin, as opposed to bedtime dosing, may avoid a counter-regulatory hormone response, including catecholamines, because of altered fuel supply potentially leading to unexpected cardiovascular outcomes.

Classification of LDL phenotypes by 4 methods of determining lipoprotein particle size.

BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering is the primary objective of patient management for cardiovascular disease. However, large numbers of patients who have achieved their LDL-C goal remain at risk for cardiovascular events. Low-density lipoprotein subfractions may provide insight into this residual risk. Thus, LDL subfraction standardization and consistency are critical to these efforts. AIM: This study aimed to determine the agreement of the analytical results among 4 methods commonly used for LDL subfractionation, namely, segmented gradient gel electrophoresis (sGGE), ultracentrifugation-vertical auto profile (VAP), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and ion mobility (IM). METHODS: Blood samples were collected from 228 apparently healthy adults and sent to 4 clinical reference laboratories for analysis. The LDL phenotype was reported as pattern A (larger, less dense particles) or pattern B (smaller, more dense particles), respectively, and was the primary measure of comparison. An intermediate pattern (A/B) was also reported for sGGE and VAP. RESULTS: We observed complete agreement in the LDL phenotype among the 4 methods in 64% of subjects and agreement among at least 3 of the 4 methods in 87% of subjects. Agreement among pairs of methods ranged from 73% to 98% depending on how differences in reporting of subjects with intermediate results were considered. When subjects having intermediate A/B pattern were excluded, sGGE and IM had the highest agreement (98%) of any pair of methods. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement in the reported LDL phenotype among 4 LDL subfraction measurement technologies as performed by different clinical reference laboratories.