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

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

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

Patient-reported reasons for declining or discontinuing statin therapy: Insights from the PALM registry

Background: Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation.Methods and Results: This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin.Conclusions: More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered

Measurement of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in primary and secondary prevention patients: Insights from the PALM registry

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL -C) to identify untreated patients with LDL -C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid-lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL -C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL -C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart-documented LDL -C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non-college graduates (all P\u3c0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P=0.0034), a high-intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P=0.016), nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P=0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL -C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P\u3c0.0001) than patients with prior LDL -C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL -C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL -C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL -C testing is associated with higher-intensity lipid-lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL -C level

Sociodemographic determinants of oral anticoagulant prescription in patients with atrial fibrillations: Findings from the PINNACLE registry using machine learning

Background: Current risk scores that are solely based on clinical factors have shown modest predictive ability for understanding of factors associated with gaps in real-world prescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).Objective: In this study, we sought to identify the role of social and geographic determinants, beyond clinical factors associated with variation in OAC prescriptions using a large national registry of ambulatory patients with AF.Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, we identified patients with AF from the American College of Cardiology PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry. We examined associations between patient and site-of-care factors and prescription of OAC across U.S. counties. Several machine learning (ML) methods were used to identify factors associated with OAC prescription.Results: Among 864,339 patients with AF, 586,560 (68%) were prescribed OAC. County OAC prescription rates ranged from 26.8% to 93%, with higher OAC use in the Western United States. Supervised ML analysis in predicting likelihood of OAC prescriptions and identified a rank order of patient features associated with OAC prescription. In the ML models, in addition to clinical factors, medication use (aspirin, antihypertensives, antiarrhythmic agents, lipid modifying agents), and age, household income, clinic size, and U.S. region were among the most important predictors of an OAC prescription.Conclusion: In a contemporary, national cohort of patients with AF underuse of OAC remains high, with notable geographic variation. Our results demonstrated the role of several important demographic and socioeconomic factors in underutilization of OAC in patients with AF

Frequency and Practice-Level Variation in Inappropriate Aspirin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Insights From the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry’s Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry

AbstractBackgroundAmong patients without cardiovascular disease (CVD) and low 10-year CVD risk, the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic strokes associated with aspirin use outweigh any potential atheroprotective benefit. According to the guidelines on primary prevention of CVD, aspirin use is considered appropriate only in patients with 10-year CVD risk ≥6% and inappropriate in patients with 10-year CVD risk <6%.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to examine the frequency and practice-level variation in inappropriate aspirin use for primary prevention in a large U.S. nationwide registry.MethodsWithin the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry’s Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry, we assessed 68,808 unique patients receiving aspirin for primary prevention from 119 U.S. practices. The frequency of inappropriate aspirin use was determined for primary prevention (aspirin use in those with 10-year CVD risk <6%). Using hierarchical regression models, the extent of practice-level variation using the median rate ratio (MRR) was assessed.ResultsInappropriate aspirin use frequency was 11.6% (7,972 of 68,808) in the overall cohort. There was significant practice-level variation in inappropriate use (range 0% to 71.8%; median 10.1%; interquartile range 6.4%) for practices; adjusted MRR was 1.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47 to 1.77). Results remained consistent after excluding 21,052 women age ≥65 years (inappropriate aspirin use 15.2%; median practice-level inappropriate aspirin use 13.8%; interquartile range 8.2%; adjusted MRR 1.61 [95% CI: 1.46 to 1.75]) and after excluding patients with diabetes (inappropriate aspirin use 13.9%; median practice-level inappropriate aspirin use 12.4%; interquartile range 7.6%; adjusted MRR 1.55 [95% CI: 1.41 to 1.67]).ConclusionsMore than 1 in 10 patients in this national registry were receiving inappropriate aspirin therapy for primary prevention, with significant practice-level variations. Our findings suggest that there are important opportunities to improve evidence-based aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD