Impact of carotid plaque screening on smoking cessation and other cardiovascular risk factors: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening of peripheral atherosclerosis is increasingly used, but few trials have examined its clinical impact. We aimed to assess whether carotid plaque screening helps smokers to improve their health behaviors and cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: We randomly assigned 536 smokers aged 40 to 70 years to carotid plaque ultrasonographic screening (US group) vs no screening (control group) in addition to individual counseling and nicotine replacement therapy for all participants. Smokers with at least 1 plaque received pictures of their plaques with a 7-minute structured explanation. The outcomes included biochemically validated smoking cessation at 12 months (primary outcome) and changes in cardiovascular risk factor levels and Framingham risk score. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (mean age, 51.1 years; 45.0% women) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day with a median duration of 32 years. The US group had a high prevalence of carotid plaques (57.9%). At 12 months, smoking cessation rates were high, but did not differ between the US and control groups (24.9% vs 22.1%; P = .45). In the US group, cessation rates did not differ according to the presence or absence of plaques. Control of cardiovascular risk factors (ie, blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A(1c) levels in diabetic patients) and mean absolute risk change in Framingham risk score did not differ between the groups. The mean absolute risk change in Framingham risk score was +0.6 in the US group vs +0.3 in the control group (P = .56). CONCLUSION: In smokers, carotid plaque screening performed in addition to thorough smoking cessation counseling is not associated with increased rates of smoking cessation or control of cardiovascular risk factors. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00548665.

Cardiovascular risk estimation and eligibility for statin therapy using different scoring systems in Europe: a population-based study in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for statin use for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) are based on estimation of the 10- year CHD risk. We compared the 10-year CHD risk assessments and eligibility percentages for statin therapy using three scoring algorithms currently used in Europe. METHODS: We studied 5683 women and men, aged 35-75, without overt cardiovascular disease (CVD), in a population-based study in Switzerland. We compared the 10-year CHD risk using three scoring schemes, i.e., the Framingham risk score (FRS) from the U.S. National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), the PROCAM scoring scheme from the International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS), and the European risk SCORE for low-risk countries, without and with extrapolation to 60 years as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology guidelines (ESC). With FRS and PROCAM, high-risk was defined as a 10- year risk of fatal or non-fatal CHD>20% and a 10-year risk of fatal CVD≥5% with SCORE. We compared the proportions of high-risk participants and eligibility for statin use according to these three schemes. For each guideline, we estimated the impact of increased statin use from current partial compliance to full compliance on potential CHD deaths averted over 10 years, using a success proportion of 27% for statins. RESULTS: Participants classified at high-risk (both genders) were 5.8% according to FRS and 3.0% to the PROCAM, whereas the European risk SCORE classified 12.5% at high-risk (15.4% with extrapolation to 60 years). For the primary prevention of CHD, 18.5% of participants were eligible for statin therapy using ATP III, 16.6% using IAS, and 10.3% using ESC (13.0% with extrapolation) because ESC guidelines recommend statin therapy only in high-risk subjects. In comparison with IAS, agreement to identify eligible adults for statins was good with ATP III, but moderate with ESC. Using a population perspective, a full compliance with ATP III guidelines would reduce up to 17.9% of the 24′ 310 CHD deaths expected over 10 years in Switzerland, 17.3% with IAS and 10.8% with ESC (11.5% with extrapolation). CONCLUSIONS: Full compliance with guidelines for statin therapy would result in substantial health benefits, but proportions of high-risk adults and eligible adults for statin use varied substantially depending on the scoring systems and corresponding guidelines used for estimating CHD risk in Europe.

Alcohol drinking, the metabolic syndrome and diabetes in a population with high mean alcohol consumption.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship of alcohol consumption with the metabolic syndrome and diabetes in a population-based study with high mean alcohol consumption. Few data exist on these conditions in high-risk drinkers. METHODS: In 6172 adults aged 35-75 years, alcohol consumption was categorized as 0, 1-6, 7-13, 14-20, 21-27, 28-34 and ≥ 35 drinks/week or as non-drinkers (0), low-risk (1-13), medium-to-high-risk (14-34) and very-high-risk (≥ 35) drinkers. Alcohol consumption was objectively confirmed by biochemical tests. In multivariate analysis, we assessed the relationship of alcohol consumption with adjusted prevalence of the metabolic syndrome, diabetes and insulin resistance, determined with the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). RESULTS: Seventy-three per cent of participants consumed alcohol, 16% were medium-to-high-risk drinkers and 2% very-high-risk drinkers. In multivariate analysis, the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome, diabetes and mean HOMA-IR decreased with low-risk drinking and increased with high-risk drinking. Adjusted prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was 24% in non-drinkers, 19% in low-risk (P<0.001 vs. non-drinkers), 20% in medium-to-high-risk and 29% in very-high-risk drinkers (P=0.005 vs. low-risk). Adjusted prevalence of diabetes was 6.0% in non-drinkers, 3.6% in low-risk (P<0.001 vs. non-drinkers), 3.8% in medium-to-high-risk and 6.7% in very-high-risk drinkers (P=0.046 vs. low-risk). Adjusted HOMA-IR was 2.47 in non-drinkers, 2.14 in low-risk (P<0.001 vs. non-drinkers), 2.27 in medium-to-high-risk and 2.53 in very-high-risk drinkers (P=0.04 vs. low-risk). These relationships did not differ according to beverage types. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol has a U-shaped relationship with the metabolic syndrome, diabetes and HOMA-IR, without differences between beverage types.