Publications

BACKGROUND: Studying trends in mortality is essential to advance understanding of population health. Further evaluation of long-term heart disease mortality trends and subtypes in the United States is needed to guide public health and clinical interventions.

METHODS: This study used the National Vital Statistics System Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research data for adults aged 25 years and older in the United States from 1970 to 2022. Outcomes included absolute number and age-adjusted mortality of total heart disease, ischemic heart disease, and other heart disease subtypes.

RESULTS: From 1970 to 2022, overall age-adjusted heart disease mortality decreased by 66% from 1970 to 2022 (from 761 to 258 per 100 000). In 1970, 91% of all heart disease deaths were ischemic, declining to 53% of all heart disease deaths in 2022. From 1970 to 2022, age-adjusted mortality decreased by 89% for acute myocardial infarction (from 354 to 40 per 100 000) and 81% for all ischemic heart disease (from 693 to 135 per 100 00). In contrast, from 1970 to 2022 age-adjusted mortality for other heart disease subtypes increased by 81% (from 68 to 123 per 100 000), with the greatest increases in heart failure (146% increase), hypertensive heart disease (106% increase) and arrhythmias (450% increase).

CONCLUSIONS: Heart disease mortality has decreased over the past 5 decades. There is an increasing burden of mortality from other heart conditions including heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, and arrhythmias. Further efforts must be undertaken to address the growing challenge of these other heart conditions.

BACKGROUND: Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are a leading risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a major global cause of illness and death. Patients' qualitative insights about experiences, priorities, and needs are essential for creating more targeted, patient-centered quality improvement interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To document the experiences of people with high levels of low-density LDL-C in three countries.

METHODS: Qualitative study of 60-min in-depth interviews with 50 adult patients from Australia, Brazil, and the United States. The study was overseen by a Steering Committee comprising patients, patient advocates, researchers, and cardiologists. The interviews explored pathways and barriers to high LDL-C diagnosis; the burden of managing high LDL-C and the awareness of the association between high LDL-C and cardiovascular risks. The data were analyzed by applying a structured, team-based approach to coding qualitative data.

RESULTS: There were three main pathways to diagnosing high cholesterol: routine physical exams conducted by primary care providers; symptomatic presentations or incidental findings during emergency visits and through a healthcare visit for another condition, frequently diabetes. Healthcare providers' communication styles influenced patients' perceptions of their conditions. Two-thirds of participants (n = 33) attempted lifestyle changes after their high cholesterol diagnosis, but work schedules and daily routines posed barriers to maintaining healthy habits. Some participants who experienced ASCVD events waited hours or days before seeking care, assuming their symptoms were not serious. After diagnosis of an ASCVD event, many patients feared death and worried about their families' futures. When asked about potential improvements to their current therapy, 21 patients mentioned reduced administration frequency.

CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides insights into patients' experiences living with and managing elevated LDL-C. It describes opportunities for policymakers and healthcare providers to improve the detection of elevated LDL-C and support patients in understanding risks and strategies for reducing the risk of ASCVD events.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the 2003 Seventh Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7) guideline, the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guideline (ACC/AHA 2017) expanded hypertension diagnostic criteria to blood pressure (BP) ≥130/80 mm Hg and intensified treatment goals to <130/80 mm Hg. The cost-effectiveness of ACC/AHA 2017 guideline treatment has not been quantified.

METHODS: We used the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model to simulate hypertension treatment according to ACC/AHA 2017 compared with JNC7 in untreated US adults aged 35 to 79 years. Outcomes were projected over 10 years and included CVD events and deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total health care costs (ie, costs of antihypertensive treatment and costs of health care utilization for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular care, regardless of payer). Cost-effectiveness was calculated from a health care sector perspective as incremental health care costs divided by incremental QALYs.

RESULTS: Under ACC/AHA 2017, 4.9 million more US adults are indicated for treatment and 14.9 million are recommended more intensive treatment goals compared with JNC7. Over 10 years, ACC/AHA 2017 versus JNC7 treatment would cost $48 300 per QALY gained ($38 300/QALY in men; $65 200/QALY in women). Overall, 34% of CVD events prevented by ACC/AHA 2017 versus JNC7 would be from expanded diagnosis (at $120 900/QALY gained), and 66% from intensified BP treatment goals (at $18 900/QALY gained). Cost-effectiveness improved with a longer time horizon ($17 600 per QALY gained at 30 years) and when generic drug costs were assumed in place of median US drug costs ($27 900 per QALY gained in 10 years). ACC/AHA 2017 is cost-saving in adults with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and prior CVD or 10-year CVD risk ≥10%.

CONCLUSIONS: Initiating hypertension treatment according to the ACC/AHA 2017 guideline in untreated US adults is cost-effective compared with JNC7 at 10 years. Prioritizing low-cost generic medicines and intensive BP treatment of high-CVD-risk adults with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg returns the most value.

AIM: The "2025 AHA/ACC Statement on Cost/Value Methodology in Clinical Practice Guidelines (Update From 2014 Statement)" describes a systematic approach for consistent implementation of "economic value statements" across ACC/AHA guidelines. It updates the cost-effectiveness threshold and proposes a new level of certainty framework that summarizes the strength of the available evidence. Additionally, it describes how cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help advance equity in population cardiovascular health.

METHODS: A focused literature search was conducted from January 9, 2024, to February 2, 2024, encompassing English-language publications related to CEA methodology in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, with publication dates ranging from 1973 to the present. Additional relevant studies published during the writing process (through June 25, 2024) were also considered by the writing committee.

STRUCTURE: This Cost/Value Methodology Statement updates prior guidance regarding the incorporation of evidence from published CEAs into clinical guidelines. It provides guidance for identifying and synthesizing relevant high-quality evidence, developing economic value statements, and communicating level of certainty in such statements. It defines the US cost-effectiveness threshold as $120 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, highlights special considerations related to cardiovascular drugs and devices, emphasizes health equity considerations when interpreting CEAs, and defines a reference case for future CEAs.

BACKGROUND: Among Hispanic/Latino subgroups residing in the US, disparities in cardiovascular health status remain largely uncharacterized.

METHODS: This national study used the National Health Interview Survey to assess the burden of cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, diabetes) and cardiovascular diseases (history of heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, stroke) across Hispanic/Latino subgroups (Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Central/South American), and the extent to which differences are related to lifestyle factors (physical inactivity, smoking, and alcohol consumption) and/or social determinants of health (income, education, food security, and health insurance status).

RESULTS: The weighted study population included 35,549,841 Hispanic/Latino adults (26,008 respondents). In age- and sex-adjusted models, hypertension was more common among Puerto Rican adults (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.12-1.60) but less common among Central/South American adults (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61-0.82) compared to Mexican adults (reference group). Central/South Americans were also less likely to have obesity (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.57-0.70) and diabetes (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.42-0.61). For cardiovascular diseases, Puerto Rican adults were more likely to have angina (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.06-2.71), whereas Central/South Americans were less likely to have angina (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.84), coronary heart disease (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.96), and heart attack (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33-0.72). Moreover, Cuban adults were less likely to have hyperlipidemia (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61-0.88), obesity (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.49-0.70), diabetes (OR 0.44. 95% CI: 0.34-0.57) and stroke (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.92) Differences persisted after sequentially adjusting for lifestyle factors and social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION: This study used disaggregated data to demonstrate the complex landscape of cardiovascular health among Hispanic/Latino adults in the US, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and policy efforts to reduce health inequities in this rapidly growing population.