4.6 Article

Coronary Artery Calcium Score to Refine the Use of PCSK9i in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Multicohort Study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025737

关键词

atherosclerosis; cardiovascular disease; coronary artery calcium; PCSK9i; primary prevention; risk

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [HHSN268201500003I, N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95169]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL-TR-000040, UL1-TR-001079, UL1-TR-001420, UL1-TR-001881]
  3. NHLBI [HHSN268201800003I, HHSN268201800004I, HHSN268201800005I, HHSN268201800006I, HHSN268201800007I]
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Science [UL1TR001105]
  5. National Institutes of Health
  6. Heinz Nixdorf Foundation
  7. German Research Council (DFG) [EI 969/2-3, ER 155/6-1, ER 155/6-2, HO 3314/2-1, HO 3314/2-2, HO 3314/2-3, HO 3314/4-3, INST 58219/32-1, JO 170/8-1, KN 885/3-1, PE 2309/2-1, SI 236/8-1, SI 236/9-1, SI 236/10-1]
  8. German Ministry of Education and Science (BMBF) [01EG0401, 01GI0856, 01GI0860, 01GS0820_WB2--C, 01ER1001D, 01GI0205]
  9. Ministry of Innovation, Science, Research and Technology, North Rhine-Westphalia
  10. Else Kroner--Fresenius--Stiftung [2015_ A119]
  11. German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) [FF-FP295]
  12. Competence Network for HIV/AIDS
  13. Interne Forschungsforderung Essen of the University Duisburg--Essen
  14. European Union
  15. German Competence Network Heart Failure
  16. Kulturstiftung Essen
  17. Protein Research Unit
  18. Celgene GmbH Munchen
  19. Imatron/GE--Imatron
  20. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  21. Merck KGaA
  22. Philips
  23. ResMed Foundation
  24. Roche Diagnostics
  25. Sarstedt AGCo
  26. Siemens HealthCare Diagnostics
  27. Volkswagen Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the ability of coronary artery calcium (CAC) to stratify ASCVD risk under three non-familial hypercholesterolemia PCSK9i allocation paradigms. The results showed that CAC=0 was associated with lower incident ASCVD rates, and CAC burden was independently associated with ASCVD events.
Background The value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) in the allocation of PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors) among individuals without clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is unknown for indications that do not require confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia. We aimed to assess the ability of CAC to stratify ASCVD risk under 3 non-familial hypercholesterolemia PCSK9i allocation paradigms. Methods and Results We included participants without clinically evident ASCVD from MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults) study, DHS (Dallas Heart Study), and HNR (Heinz Nixdorf Recall) study. Three PCSK9i eligibility scenarios were defined: a broad scenario informed only by high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (N=567), a restrictive one combining higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and presence of >= 2 additional risk factors (N=127), and a high-risk scenario where individuals with subclinical organ damage or high estimated risk would be treated to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <55 mg/dL (N=471). The high-risk scenario had the highest ASCVD event rates (27.8% at 10 years). CAC=0 was observed in 35% participants in the broad scenario, 25% in the restrictive scenario, and 16% in the high-risk scenario. In all, CAC=0 was associated with the lowest incident ASCVD rates at 5 and 10 years, and CAC burden was independently associated with ASCVD events adjusting for traditional risk factors. Conclusions CAC may be used to refine the allocation of PCSK9i, potentially leading to a more conservative use if CAC=0. The value of CAC testing is greater in scenarios that use low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and/or traditional risk factors to define PCSK9i eligibility (CAC=0 present in 1 of 3-4 patients), whereas its prevalence is lower when allocation is informed by presence of noncoronary subclinical organ damage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据