2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

1.1. Organization of the Work Group: The Risk Assessment Work Group (Work Group) was composed of 11 members and 5 ex-officio members, including internists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, and experts in cardiovascular epidemiology, biostatistics, healthcare management and economics, and guideline development. 1.2. Document Review and Approval: A formal peer review process, which included 12 expert reviewers and representatives of federal agencies, was initially completed under the auspices of the NHLBI. This document was also reviewed by 3 expert reviewers nominated by the ACC and the AHA when the management of the guideline transitioned to the ACC/AHA. The ACC and AHA Reviewers’ RWI information is published in this document (Appendix 2). This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACC and AHA and endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, American Society for Preventive Cardiology, American Society of Hypertension, Association of Black Cardiologists, National Lipid Association, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women With Heart Disease. 1.3. Charge to the Work Group: The Work Group was 1 of 3 work groups appointed by the NHLBI to develop its own recommendations and provide cross-cutting input to 3 Panels for updating guidelines on blood cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), and overweight/obesity. The Work Group was asked to examine the scientific evidence on risk assessment for initial ASCVD events and to develop an approach for quantitative risk assessment that could be used in practice and used or adapted by the risk factor panels (blood cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity) in their guidelines and algorithms. Specifically, the Work Group was charged with 2 tasks: 1) To develop or recommend an approach to quantitative risk assessment that could be used to guide care; and 2) To use systematic review methodology to pose and address a small number of questions judged to be critical to refining and adopting risk assessment in clinical practice

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

The Expert Panel was charged with using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs to update the clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of blood cholesterol levels to reduce ASCVD risk. For this guideline, ASCVD includes coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and peripheral arterial disease, all of presumed atherosclerotic origin. These recommendations are intended to provide a strong, evidence-based foundation for the treatment of cholesterol for the primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD in women and men

Creating implementable clinical practice guidelines: the 2020 Focused Updates to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Asthma Management Guidelines

Abstract Background The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group provides the first new clinical practice recommendations from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) since the previous 2007 asthma management guidelines. Guideline implementability was a high priority for the expert panel, and many approaches were undertaken to enhance the implementability of this clinical guideline update. Within the report, specific implementation guidance sections provide expanded summaries for each recommendation to quickly assist users. The implementation guidance incorporates findings from NHLBI-sponsored focus groups conducted with people who have asthma, caregivers, and health care providers. The findings were used to identify the types of information and tools that individuals with asthma, their caregivers, and their health care providers would find most helpful; ensure that the new asthma guidelines reflect the voices of individuals with asthma and their caregivers; and identify potential barriers to uptake by individuals with asthma and their caregivers. The expert panel used a GRADE-based approach to develop evidence-to-decision tables that provided a framework for assessing the evidence and consideration of a range of contextual factors that influenced the recommendations such as desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, values, balance of effects, acceptability, feasibility, and equity. To facilitate uptake in clinical care workflow, selected recommendations were converted into structured, computer-based clinical decision support artifacts, and the new recommendations were integrated into existing treatment tables used in the 2007 asthma management guidelines, with which many users are familiar. A comprehensive approach to improve guidelines dissemination and implementation included scientific publications, patient materials, media activities, stakeholder engagement, and professional education. Conclusion We developed evidence-based clinical practice guideline updates for asthma management focused on six topic areas. The guideline development processes and implementation and dissemination activities undertaken sought to enhance implementability by focusing on intrinsic factors as described by Kastner, Gagliardi, and others to produce usable, adoptable, and adaptable guidelines. Enhanced collaboration during guideline development between authors, informaticists, and implementation scientists may facilitate the development of tools that support the application of recommendations to further improve implementability

Update on RFA Increasing Use of Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Traditional and Community Settings NIH-Funded Trials: ADDRESSING CLINICAL TRIAL CHALLENGES PRESENTED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

We previously described the design of six NIH-funded clinical trials designed to increase uptake and reduce disparities in the use of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic necessitated signifi cant revisions to the trials to ensure the safety of participants and research staff. This article described necessary modifi cations for assessments, interventions, and data collection to support a no-contact approach centered on the use of virtual/remote techniques that maintain both safety and the original intent and integrity of the trials. The general shift from site-based to home-based interventions and hybrid models of CR and PR will be increasingly important in a post-COVID world

Reducing Health Inequities in the U.S.: Recommendations From the NHLBI\u27s Health Inequities Think Tank Meeting.

The National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a Think Tank meeting to obtain insight and recommendations regarding the objectives and design of the next generation of research aimed at reducing health inequities in the United States. The panel recommended several specific actions, including: 1) Embrace broad and inclusive research themes; 2) Develop research platforms that optimize the ability to conduct informative and innovative research, and promote systems science approaches; 3) Develop networks of collaborators and stakeholders, and launch transformative studies that can serve as benchmarks; 4) Optimize the use of new data sources, platforms, and natural experiments; and 5) develop unique transdisciplinary training programs to build research capacity. Confronting health inequities will require engaging multiple disciplines and sectors (including communities), using systems science, and intervening through combinations of individual, family, provider, health system, and community-targeted approaches. Details of the panel’s remarks and recommendations are provided in this report

Perspectives from NHLBI Global Health Think Tank Meeting for late stage (T4) translation research

Almost three-quarters (74%) of all the noncommunicable disease burden is found within low- and middle-income countries. In September 2014, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute held a Global Health Think Tank meeting to obtain expert advice and recommendations for addressing compelling scientific questions for late stage (T4) research—research that studies implementation strategies for proven effective interventions—to inform and guide the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's global health research and training efforts. Major themes emerged in two broad categories: 1) developing research capacity; and 2) efficiently defining compelling scientific questions within the local context. Compelling scientific questions included how to deliver inexpensive, scalable, and sustainable interventions using alternative health delivery models that leverage existing human capital, technologies and therapeutics, and entrepreneurial strategies. These broad themes provide perspectives that inform an overarching strategy needed to reduce the heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders disease burden and global health disparitie