An evaluation of the effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on the growth rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a randomized placebo-controlled trial (AARDVARK)

Aims: The AARDVARK (Aortic Aneurysmal Regression of Dilation: Value of ACE-Inhibition on RisK) trial investigated whether ACE-inhibition reduces small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) growth rate, independent of blood pressure (BP) lowering. Methods and results: A three-arm, multi-centre, single-blind, and randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN51383267) was conducted in 14 hospitals in England. Subjects aged ≥55 years with AAA diameter 3.0–5.4 cm were randomized 1:1:1 to receive perindopril arginine 10 mg, or amlodipine 5 mg, or placebo and followed 3–6 monthly over 2 years. The primary outcome was aneurysm growth rate (based on external antero-posterior ultrasound measurements in the longitudinal plane), determined by multi-level modelling to provide maximum likelihood estimates. Two hundred and twenty-four subjects were randomized (2011–2013) to placebo (n = 79), perindopril (n = 73), or amlodipine (n = 72). Mean (SD) changes in mid-trial systolic BP (12 months) were 0.5 (14.3) mmHg, P = 0.78 compared with baseline, −9.5 (13.1) mmHg (P < 0.001), and −6.7 (12.0) mmHg (P < 0.001), respectively. No significant differences in the modelled annual growth rates were apparent [1.68 mm (SE 0.2), 1.77 mm (0.2), and 1.81 mm (0.2), respectively]. The estimated difference in annual growth between the perindopril and placebo groups was 0.08 mm (CI −0.50, 0.65). Similar numbers of AAAs in each group reached 5.5 cm diameter and/or underwent elective surgery: 11 receiving placebo, 10 perindopril, and 11 amlodipine. Conclusion: Small AAA growth rates were lower than anticipated, but there was no significant impact of perindopril compared with placebo or placebo and amlodipine, combined despite more effective BP lowering

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommendations for residual risk reduction in ASCVD: a simulation study from DA VINCI

Purpose Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (< 70 vs. < 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. Methods DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of < 70 or < 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. Results Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C < 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81–115) mg/dl and 32% (25–43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12–46) and 39 (27–91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7–25%) and 22% (15–32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2–7%) and 6% (4–9%), respectively. Conclusion In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach

EU-wide cross-sectional observational study of lipid-modifying therapy use in secondary and primary care: the DA VINCI study

Aims To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement.Methods and results An 18 country, cross-sectional, observational study of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care across Europe. Between June 2017 and November 2018, data were collected at a single visit, including LLT in the preceding 12 months and most recent LDL-C. Primary outcome was the achievement of risk-based 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C goal while receiving stabilized LLT; 2019 goal achievement was also assessed. Overall, 5888 patients (3000 primary and 2888 secondary prevention patients) were enrolled; 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52-56] achieved their risk-based 2016 goal and 33% (95% CI 32-35) achieved their risk-based 2019 goal. High-intensity statin monotherapy was used in 20% and 38% of very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Corresponding 2016 goal attainment was 22% and 45% (17% and 22% for 2019 goals) for very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Use of moderate-high-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe (9%), or any LLT with PCSK9 inhibitors (1%), was low; corresponding 2016 and 2019 goal attainment was 53% and 20% (ezetimibe combination), and 67% and 58% (PCSK9i combination).Conclusion Gaps between clinical guidelines and clinical practice for lipid management across Europe persist, which will be exacerbated by the 2019 guidelines. Even with optimized statins, greater utilization of non-statin LLT is likely needed to reduce these gaps for patients at highest risk.Cardiolog

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.[Purpose] Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (< 70 vs. < 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated.[Methods] DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of < 70 or < 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated.[Results] Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C < 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81–115) mg/dl and 32% (25–43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12–46) and 39 (27–91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7–25%) and 22% (15–32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2–7%) and 6% (4–9%), respectively.[Conclusion] In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach.This study was funded by Amgen Europe (GmbH).Peer reviewe

Global blood pressure screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the May Measurement Month 2021 campaign.

BACKGROUND: Raised blood pressure (BP) remains the biggest risk factor contributing to the global burden of disease and mortality, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. May Measurement Month (MMM), an annual global screening campaign aims to highlight the importance of BP measurement by evaluating global awareness, treatment and control rates among adults with hypertension. In 2021, we assessed the global burden of these rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Screening sites were set up in 54 countries between May and November 2021 and screenees were recruited by convenience sampling. Three sitting BPs were measured, and a questionnaire completed including demographic, lifestyle and clinical data. Hypertension was defined as a systolic BP at least 140 mmHg and/or a diastolic BP at least 90 mmHg (using the mean of the second and third readings) or taking antihypertensive medication. Multiple imputation was used to impute the average BP when readings were missing. RESULTS: Of the 642 057 screenees, 225 882 (35.2%) were classified as hypertensive, of whom 56.8% were aware, and 50.3% were on antihypertensive medication. Of those on treatment, 53.9% had controlled BP (<140/90 mmHg). Awareness, treatment and control rates were lower than those reported in MMM campaigns before the COVID-19 pandemic. Minimal changes were apparent among those testing positive for, or being vaccinated against COVID-19. Of those on antihypertensive medication, 94.7% reported no change in their treatment because of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The high yield of untreated or inadequately treated hypertension in MMM 2021 confirms the need for systematic BP screening where it does not currently exist

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Purpose Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (= 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of = 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively.Conclusion In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach.Cardiolog

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Purpose Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (= 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of = 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively.Conclusion In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Purpose: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (&lt; 70 vs. &lt; 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. Methods: DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of &lt; 70 or &lt; 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. Results: Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C &lt; 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81–115) mg/dl and 32% (25–43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12–46) and 39 (27–91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7–25%) and 22% (15–32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2–7%) and 6% (4–9%), respectively. Conclusion: In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.] © 2022, The Author(s)

EU-wide cross-sectional observational study of lipid-modifying therapy use in secondary and primary care: the DA VINCI study

Aims To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement. Methods and results An 18 country, cross-sectional, observational study of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care across Europe. Between June 2017 and November 2018, data were collected at a single visit, including LLT in the preceding 12 months and most recent LDL-C. Primary outcome was the achievement of risk-based 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C goal while receiving stabilized LLT; 2019 goal achievement was also assessed. Overall, 5888 patients (3000 primary and 2888 secondary prevention patients) were enrolled; 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52–56] achieved their risk-based 2016 goal and 33% (95% CI 32–35) achieved their risk-based 2019 goal. High-intensity statin monotherapy was used in 20% and 38% of very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Corresponding 2016 goal attainment was 22% and 45% (17% and 22% for 2019 goals) for very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Use of moderate–high-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe (9%), or any LLT with PCSK9 inhibitors (1%), was low; corresponding 2016 and 2019 goal attainment was 53% and 20% (ezetimibe combination), and 67% and 58% (PCSK9i combination). Conclusion Gaps between clinical guidelines and clinical practice for lipid management across Europe persist, which will be exacerbated by the 2019 guidelines. Even with optimized statins, greater utilization of non-statin LLT is likely needed to reduce these gaps for patients at highest risk

EU-Wide Cross-Sectional Observational Study of Lipid-Modifying Therapy Use in Secondary and Primary Care: the DA VINCI study.

To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement. An 18 country, cross-sectional, observational study of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care across Europe. Between June 2017 and November 2018, data were collected at a single visit, including LLT in the preceding 12 months and most recent LDL-C. Primary outcome was the achievement of risk-based 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C goal while receiving stabilized LLT; 2019 goal achievement was also assessed. Overall, 5888 patients (3000 primary and 2888 secondary prevention patients) were enrolled; 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52-56] achieved their risk-based 2016 goal and 33% (95% CI 32-35) achieved their risk-based 2019 goal. High-intensity statin monotherapy was used in 20% and 38% of very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Corresponding 2016 goal attainment was 22% and 45% (17% and 22% for 2019 goals) for very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Use of moderate-high-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe (9%), or any LLT with PCSK9 inhibitors (1%), was low; corresponding 2016 and 2019 goal attainment was 53% and 20% (ezetimibe combination), and 67% and 58% (PCSK9i combination). Gaps between clinical guidelines and clinical practice for lipid management across Europe persist, which will be exacerbated by the 2019 guidelines. Even with optimized statins, greater utilization of non-statin LLT is likely needed to reduce these gaps for patients at highest risk