Should scope of practice laws for advanced practice providers be revised?

The U.S. faces a projected shortage of primary care physicians. The authors of the June HPR newsletter discuss their studies showing that a care delivery model that expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants could help close the gap without affecting routine chronic disease care

Monoclonal antibodies, gene silencing and gene editing (CRISPR) therapies for the treatment of hyperlipidemia-The future is here

Hyperlipidemia is a significant risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Undertreatment of elevated lipids persists despite existing therapies. Here, we provide an update on monoclonal antibodies, gene silencing therapies, and gene editing techniques for the management of hyperlipidemia. The current era of cutting-edge pharmaceuticals targeting low density lipoprotein cholesterol, PCSK9, lipoprotein (a), angiopoietin-like 3, and apolipoprotein C3 are reviewed. We outline what is known, studies in progress, and futuristic goals. This review of available and upcoming biotechnological lipid therapies is presented for clinicians managing patients with familial hyperlipidemia, statin intolerance, hypertriglyceridemia, or elevated lipoprotein (a) levels

Glucocentric drugs in cardiovascular disease protection and heart failure

Evidence for cardiovascular outcomes with older-generation antihyperglycemic drugs in the management of type 2 diabetes is based on aggregated data from prior randomized controlled trials and observational studies that were not focused on prespecified cardiovascular end points. Newer antihyperglycemic medications have undergone a rigorous evaluation of cardiovascular outcomes through randomized controlled trials since the US Food and Drug Administration imposed a mandatory requirement for all glucose-lowering drugs in 2008. The three classes of drugs that have been most extensively studied are dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, the latter two reporting significant reductions in adverse cardiovascular outcomes independent of their glycemic effect. Remarkably, it was the evidence from SGLT2 inhibitors cardiovascular outcome trials that prompted further evaluation of the drug class in patients with heart failure irrespective of their diabetes status, demonstrating a broader cardiometabolic effect of these drugs. In this review, we assess the evidence for cardiovascular outcomes with common older- and newer-generation glucose-lowering drugs in the management of type 2 diabetes. We also discuss emerging glucose-lowering drugs with novel metabolic targets that influence the risk of adverse cardiovascular events and expand on the role of these drugs beyond the management of type 2 diabetes

Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Training Opportunities, the Challenges, and Future Directions

Purpose: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, necessitating major efforts in prevention. This review summarizes the currently available training opportunities in CVD prevention for fellows-in-training (FITs) and residents. We also highlight the challenges and future directions for CVD prevention as a field and propose a structure for an inclusive CVD prevention training program. Recent Findings: At present, there is a lack of centralized training resources for FITs and residents interested in pursuing a career in CVD prevention. Training in CVD prevention is not an accredited subspecialty fellowship by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Although there are several independent training programs under the broad umbrella of CVD prevention focusing on different aspects of prevention, there is no unified curriculum or training. More collaborative efforts are needed to identify CVD prevention as an ACGME-accredited subspecialty fellowship. Providing more resources can encourage and produce more leaders in this essential field

Heartburn\u27s hidden impact: A narrative review exploring gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) as a cardiovascular disease risk factor

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a very common disease with an estimated 442 million cases worldwide. It is a well-documented independent risk factor for many gastrointestinal pathologies, however, its role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unclear, despite its high prevalence in patients with CVD. Although traditionally considered a causative agent of noncardiac chest pain, a common imitator of cardiac chest pain, or an incidentally shared comorbidity in patients with CVD, a number of studies have implicated GERD and its therapies as risk factors for CVD. This narrative review will explore the relationship between GERD and CVD, including medical and mechanical therapeutic approaches for GERD that could potentially impact the incidence, progression, and mortality of CVD

Association between psychological distress and cardiovascular health amongst cancer survivors in the United States: findings from nationally representative data

Research letter

Clinical Characteristics of Patients Classified as Very High Risk and Not Very High Risk Based on the 2018 AHA/ACC Multi-Society Cholesterol Guideline

Background The 2018 AHA/ACC Cholesterol Guideline recommendation to classify ASCVD patients as very high-risk (VHR) vs not-VHR (NVHR) has important implications for ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitor eligibility. We aimed to define the clinical characteristics of these two groups within a large multi-state healthcare system in the Western U.S. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients defined as having ASCVD in 2018 using EHR ICD-10 codes. VHR was defined by ≥2 major ASCVD events (ACS ≤12 months, history of MI \u3e12 months, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic PAD) or 1 major ASCVD event and ≥2 high-risk conditions (age ≥65, DM, HTN, smoking, HeFH, CKD, CHF, persistently elevated LDL-C, or prior CABG/PCI). Patients not meeting these criteria were classified as NVHR. Results A total of 180,669 ASCVD patients were identified: 104,123 (58%) were VHR and 76,546 (42%) were NVHR. Mean age and gender was 70.1±13.4 years, 54% male and 73.1±11.9 years, 55% male for the NVHR and VHR groups, respectively. Among patients with a history of MI or recent ACS, 99% and 96% were classified as VHR, respectively (Table). Age ≥65, HTN and DM were the most prevalent high-risk conditions. Conclusion Criteria used to predict future CV risk largely divide ASCVD patients into groups of similar prevalence. Nearly all ACS/MI patients were VHR. With growing emphasis on individualized risk assessment and intense LDL-C reduction, opportunity exists to further refine risk prediction within these two at-risk groups

Statin use and adverse effects among adults \u3e 75 years of age: Insights from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry

Background: Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and results: We compared statin use and dosing between adults \u3e75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were \u3e75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high-dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those \u3e75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high-dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high-intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [PP=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; Conclusions: Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged \u3e75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high-intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adult