Assessing Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Responses to Preventive Therapies in Clinical Practice
Purpose of Review
The aims of this review are to provide perspective on evaluation of relative and absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reductions for assessing the efficacy of preventive therapies and to summarize methods for evaluation of CVD risk in clinical practice.
Major CVD risk factors can be used to stratify patients into risk categories. Results from recent trials reinforce the view that benefits of preventive therapies will be greatest in those with the highest absolute risk and in those with the most severe disturbance in the risk factor targeted. In evaluating clinical utility, it is necessary to assess the impact of an intervention on both relative and absolute risk. Quantitative risk scoring using major CVD risk factors is effective for identifying those at low, moderate, and high CVD risk. When there is uncertainty about the appropriate treatment strategy, additional testing may be used to refine risk assessment. This may include measurement of inflammatory markers, subclinical indicators of atherosclerosis (e.g., coronary artery calcium and ankle brachial index), urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, and the level of lipoprotein (a).
The benefit of a preventive therapy will generally be the greatest in those with the highest absolute risk and in those with the most severe disturbance in the risk factor targeted. Quantitative risk scoring with major CVD risk factors can be supplemented with additional testing for refinement of risk assessment in patients for whom decisions about pharmacotherapy, or the intensity of therapy, for risk factor modification are uncertain.
KeywordsCardiovascular risk Risk assessment Risk factors Lipoprotein lipids Inflammation Subclinical cardiovascular biomarkers
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Maki reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Kowa, personal fees from Quest Laboratories, and grants from Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Dr. Dicklin reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work.
Human and Animal Rights and Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel) III. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106(25):3143–421.Google Scholar
- 4.• Jacobson TA, Ito MK, Maki KC, Orringer CE, Bays HE, Jones PH, et al. National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: part 1—full report. J Clin Lipidol. 2015;9(2):129–69. Full report of the most recent CVD risk assessment and dyslipidemia management guidelines from the NLA. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.•• Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, Honarpour N, Wiviott SD, Murphy SA, et al. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1713–22. Results from FOURIER, the first cardiovascular outcome trial of a PCSK9 inhibitor. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.•• Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Jr., Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 [Epub ahead of print]. The most recent blood pressure guidelines from the ACC/AHA Task Force on clinical practice guidelines.Google Scholar
- 14.• Jacobson TA, Ito MK, Maki KC, Orringer CE, Bays HE, Jones PH, et al. National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: part 1—executive summary. J Clin Lipidol. 2014;8(5):473–88. Executive summary of the most recent CVD risk assessment and dyslipidemia management guidelines from the NLA. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.•• Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB Sr, Gibbons R, et al. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2935–59. The most recent full CVD risk assessment guidelines from the ACC/AHA. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.• Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, Eckel RH, et al. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(Pt B):2889–934. The most recent full cholesterol management guidelines from the ACC/AHA. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.• Jacobson TA, Maki KC, Orringer CE, Jones PH, Kris-Etherton P, Sikand G, et al. National Lipid Association Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia: Part 2. J Clin Lipidol. 2015b;9(6 Suppl):S1–122. Continuation of the most recent dyslipidemia management guidelines from the NLA that include recommendations regarding lifestyle therapies, groups with special considerations, and strategies to increase adherence. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Eckel RH, Jakicic JM, Ard JD, de Jesus JM, Houston Miller N, Hubbard VS, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2960–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2017. Diabetes Care 2017;40(Suppl 1):S1–135.Google Scholar
- 23.•• Ridker PM, Everett BM, Thuren T, MacFadyen JG, Chang WH, Ballantyne C, et al. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1119–31. Results from the proof-of-concept CANTOS study demonstrating that lowering inflammation reduces risk for CVD. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.•• Ridker PM, MacFadyen J, Everett B, Libby P, Thuren T, Glynn R. on behalf of the worldwide investigators and participants in the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS). Residual inflammatory risk and residual cholesterol risk: critical analysis from CANTOS. Relationship of CRP reduction to cardiovascular event reduction following treatment with canakinumab. Slides presented at the American Heart Association 2017. Accessed on November 30, 2017 at http://www.clinicaltrialresults.com/Slides/AHA2017/CANTOS_Ridker.pdf. Presentation of the CANTOS results at the 2017 AHA meeting.
- 26.Bohula EA, Giugliano RP, Cannon CP, Zhou J, Murphy SA, White JA, et al. Achievement of dual low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein targets more frequent with the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin and associated with better outcomes in IMPROVE-IT. Circulation. 2015;132(13):1224–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW, Budoff M, Blaha MJ, Post WS, Kronmal RA, et al. 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction using coronary artery calcium and traditional risk factors. Derivation in the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) with Validation in the HNR (Heinz Nixdorf Recall) Study and the DHS (Dallas Heart Study). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(15):1643–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.• Gupta A, Lau E, Varshney R, Hulten EA, Cheezum M, Bittencourt MS, et al. The identification of calcified coronary plaque is associated with initiation and continuation of pharmacological and lifestyle preventive therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(8):833–42. Recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of CAC CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Sniderman AD, Williams K, Contois JH, Monroe HM, McQueen MJ, de Graaf J, et al. A meta-analysis of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B as markers of cardiovascular risk. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):337–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar