Dataset Information

The ability of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiovascular risk score to identify rheumatoid arthritis patients with high coronary artery calcification scores.

ABSTRACT: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is underestimated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS). We undertook this study to test the hypothesis that the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 10-year risk score would perform better than the FRS and the Reynolds Risk Score (RRS) in identifying RA patients known to have elevated cardiovascular risk based on high coronary artery calcification (CAC) scores.Among 98 RA patients eligible for risk stratification using the ACC/AHA risk score, we identified 34 patients with high CAC (defined as ?300 Agatston units or ?75th percentile of expected coronary artery calcium for age, sex, and ethnicity) and compared the ability of the 10-year FRS, RRS, and ACC/AHA risk scores to correctly assign these patients to an elevated risk category.All 3 risk scores were higher in patients with high CAC (P < 0.05). The percentage of patients with high CAC correctly assigned to the elevated risk category was similar among the 3 scores (FRS 32%, RRS 32%, ACC/AHA risk score 41%) (P = 0.223). The C statistics for the FRS, RRS, and ACC/AHA risk score predicting the presence of high CAC were 0.65, 0.66, and 0.65, respectively.The ACC/AHA 10-year risk score does not offer any advantage compared to the traditional FRS and RRS in the identification of RA patients with elevated risk as determined by high CAC. The ACC/AHA risk score assigned almost 60% of patients with high CAC to a low risk category. Risk scores and standard risk prediction models used in the general population do not adequately identify many RA patients with elevated cardiovascular risk.

SUBMITTER: Kawai VK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4369184 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The ability of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiovascular risk score to identify rheumatoid arthritis patients with high coronary artery calcification scores.

Kawai Vivian K VK Chung Cecilia P CP Solus Joseph F JF Oeser Annette A Raggi Paolo P Stein C Michael CM

Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) 20150201 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is underestimated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS). We undertook this study to test the hypothesis that the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 10-year risk score would perform better than the FRS and the Reynolds Risk Score (RRS) in identifying RA patients known to have elevated cardiovascular risk based on high coronary artery calci ...[more]

PMID: 25371313

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients.ObjectiveTo examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices.Design, setting, and participantsAmong 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ExposuresModerate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.Main outcomes and measuresTime trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT.ResultsIn the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceAdoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.

Project description:Although HIV is associated with increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, it is unknown whether guidelines can identify HIV-infected adults who may benefit from statins. We compared the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2004 Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations in HIV-infected adults and evaluated associations with carotid artery intima-media thickness and plaque. Carotid artery intima-media thickness was measured at baseline and 3 years later in 352 HIV-infected adults without clinical atherosclerotic CVD and not on statins. Plaque was defined as IMT >1.5 mm in any segment. At baseline, the median age was 43 (interquartile range, 39-49), 85% were men, 74% were on antiretroviral medication, and 50% had plaque. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines were more likely to recommend statins compared with the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, both overall (26% versus 14%; P<0.001), in those with plaque (32% versus 17%; P=0.0002), and in those without plaque (16% versus 7%; P=0.025). In multivariable analysis, older age, higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, pack per year of smoking, and history of opportunistic infection were associated with baseline plaque. Baseline IMT (hazard ratio, 1.18 per 10% increment; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.33; P=0.005) and plaque (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-4.08; P=0.037) were each associated with all-cause mortality, independent of traditional CVD risk factors. Although the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommended statins to a greater number of HIV-infected adults compared with the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, both failed to recommend therapy in the majority of HIV-affected adults with carotid plaque. Baseline carotid atherosclerosis but not atherosclerotic CVD risk scores was an independent predictor of mortality. HIV-specific guidelines that include detection of subclinical atherosclerosis may help to identify HIV-infected adults who are at increased atherosclerotic CVD risk and may be considered for statins.

Project description:BackgroundIn the general population, the majority of cardiovascular events occur in people at the low to moderate end of population risk distribution. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol recommends consideration of statin therapy for adults with an estimated 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥7.5% based on traditional risk factors. Whether use of nontraditional risk markers can improve risk assessment in those below this threshold for statin therapy is unclear.Methods and resultsUsing data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a population sample free of clinical CVD at baseline, we calibrated the Pooled Cohort Equations (cPCE). ASCVD was defined as myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. Adults with an initial cPCE <7.5% and elevated levels of additional risk markers (abnormal test) whose new calculated risk was ≥7.5% were considered statin eligible: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160 mg/dL; family history of ASCVD; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥2 mg/dL; coronary artery calcium score ≥300 Agatston units or ≥75th percentile for age, sex, and ethnicity; and ankle-brachial index <0.9. We compared the absolute and relative ASCVD risks among those with versus without elevated posttest estimated risk. We calculated the number needed to screen to identify 1 person with abnormal test for each risk marker, defined as the number of participants with baseline cPCE risk <7.5% divided by the number with an abnormal test reclassified as statin eligible. Of 5185 participants not taking statins with complete data (age, 45-84 years), 4185 had a cPCE risk <7.5%. During 10 years of follow-up, 57% of the ASCVD events (183 of 320) occurred among adults with a cPCE risk <7.5%. When people with diabetes mellitus were excluded, the coronary artery calcium criterion reclassified 6.8% upward, with an event rate of 13.3%, absolute risk of 10%, relative risk of 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-5.7), and number needed to screen of 14.7. The corresponding numbers for family history of ASCVD were 4.6%, 15.1%, 12%, 4.3 (95% CI, 3.0-6.4), and 21.8; for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein criteria, 2.6%, 10%, 6%, 2.6 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8), and 39.2; for ankle-brachial index criteria, 0.6%, 9%, 5%, 2.3 (95% CI, 0.6-8.6), and 176.5; and for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol criteria, 0.5%, 5%, 1%, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.2-8.4), and 193.3, respectively. Of the 3882 with <7.5% cPCE risk, 431 (11.1%) were reclassified to ≥7.5% (statin eligible) by at least 1 of the additional risk marker criteria.ConclusionsIn this generally low-risk population sample, a large proportion of ASCVD events occurred among adults with a 10-year cPCE risk <7.5%. We found that the coronary artery calcium score, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, family history of ASCVD, and ankle-brachial index recommendations by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines (Class IIB) identify small subgroups of asymptomatic population with a 10-year cPCE risk <7.5% but with observed ASCVD event rates >7.5% who may warrant statin therapy considerations.

Project description:ImportanceClinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time.Data sourcesCurrent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents.Study selectionComprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE.Data extraction and synthesisThe number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A).ResultsAcross 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.ObjectiveTo characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.Design, setting, and participantsTextual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.Main outcomes and measuresWe abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.ResultsOf 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P < .001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P = .001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P < .001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P = .005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.Conclusions and relevanceThe durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.

Dataset Information

The ability of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiovascular risk score to identify rheumatoid arthritis patients with high coronary artery calcification scores.

Publications

The ability of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiovascular risk score to identify rheumatoid arthritis patients with high coronary artery calcification scores.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets