Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Hypercholesterolemia is a principal modifiable risk factor for the primary prevention of CVD. In addition to lifestyle modification, statins are an important tool to reduce risk for CVD in selected patients. A useful strategy to identify candidates for statins is to estimate the 10-year risk for CVD through the use of a validated risk calculator. Commonly used calculators include the Framingham risk score and the pooled cohort equation. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that statins reduce the risk for CVD in patients without known CVD. Two recent guidelines have proposed an approach to the use of statins in primary prevention of CVD. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines form the basis for this discussion. The guidelines differ on the use of advanced testing to modify the 10-year CVD risk estimate and on the need for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets to establish the efficacy of statins. Advanced testing with coronary artery calcium measurement may be helpful for patients who are potentially eligible for statin therapy but who are uncertain if they wish to take a statin. In this paper, 2 experts, a preventive cardiologist and a general internist, discuss their approach to the use of statins for primary prevention of CVD and how they would apply the guidelines to an individual patient.

Genetic testing for cardiovascular (CV) disease has had a profound impact on the diagnosis and evaluation of monogenic causes of CV disease, such as hypertrophic and familial cardiomyopathies, long QT syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia. The success in genetic testing for monogenic diseases has prompted special interest in utilizing genetic information in the risk assessment of more common diseases such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed to assess the risk of coronary artery disease, which now include millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms that have been identified through genomewide association studies. Although these PRS have demonstrated a strong association with coronary artery disease in large cross-sectional population studies, there remains intense debate regarding the added value that PRS contributes to existing clinical risk prediction models such as the pooled cohort equations. In this review, we provide a brief background of genetic testing for monogenic drivers of CV disease and then focus on the recent developments in genetic risk assessment of ASCVD, including the use of PRS. We outline the genetic testing that is currently available to all cardiologists in the clinic and discuss the evolving sphere of specialized cardiovascular genetics programs that integrate the expertise of cardiologists, geneticists, and genetic counselors. Finally, we review the possible implications that PRS and pharmacogenomic data may soon have on clinical practice in the care for patients with or at risk of developing ASCVD.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of guideline-directed cholesterol management remains low despite definitive evidence establishing such measures reduce cardiovascular (CV) events, especially in high atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) risk patients. Modern electronic resources now exist that may help improve health care delivery. While electronic medical records (EMR) allow for population health screening, the potential for coupling EMR screening to remotely delivered algorithmic population-based management has been less studied as a way of overcoming barriers to optimal cholesterol management.

METHODS: In an academically affiliated healthcare system, using EMR screening, we sought to identify 1,000 high ASCVD risk patients not meeting guideline-directed low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goals within specific system-affiliated primary care practices. Contacted patients received cholesterol education and were offered a remote, guideline-directed, algorithmic cholesterol management program executed by trained but non-licensed "navigators" under professional supervision. Navigators used telephone, proprietary software and internet resources to facilitate algorithm-driven, guideline-based medication initiation/titration, and laboratory testing until patients achieved LDL-C goals or exited the program. As a clinical effectiveness program for cholesterol guideline implementation, comparison was made to those contacted patients who declined program-based medication management, and received education only, along with their usual care.

RESULTS: 1021 patients falling into guideline-defined high ASCVD risk groups warranting statin therapy (ASCVD, type 2 diabetes, LDL ≥ 190 mg/dL, calculated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%) and not achieving guideline-defined target LDL-C levels and/or therapy were identified and contacted. Among the 698 such patients who opted for program medication management, significant LDL-C reductions occurred in the total cohort (mean -65.4 mg/dL, 45% decrease), and each high ASCVD risk subgroup: ASCVD (-57.2 mg/dL, -48.0%); diabetes mellitus (-53.1 mg/dL, -40.0%); severe hypercholesterolemia (-76.3 mg/dL, -45.7%); elevated ASCVD 10-year risk (-62.8 mg/dL, -41.1%) (P<0.001 for all), without any significant complications. Among 20% of participants with reported statin intolerance, average LDL-C decreased from baseline 143 mg/dL to 85 mg/dL using mainly statins and ezetimibe, with limited PCSK9 inhibitor use. In comparison, eligible high ASCVD risk patients who were contacted but opted for education only, a 17% LDL-C decrease occurred over a similar timeframe, with 80% remaining with an LDL-C over 100 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS: A remote, algorithm-driven, navigator-executed cholesterol management program successfully identified high ASCVD risk undertreated patients using EMR screening and was associated with significantly improved guideline-directed LDL-C control, supporting this approach as a novel strategy for improving health care access and delivery.