Outcomes of ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients with cancer: a nationwide study

Recommended and observed statin use among US adults with and without cancer

AIMS

Patients with cancer are at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. We aimed to compare the recommended and observed statin use among individuals with and without cancer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using three 2-year cycles from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-18), we analysed data from 17 050 US adults. We compared the prevalence of Class 1 statin recommendations and use between individuals with and without cancer, overall, and among different demographic groups. Individuals with a history of cancer were older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. Stratified by age groups, they were more likely to have a secondary prevention indication compared with individuals without cancer but not a primary prevention indication for statin. Among individuals with an indication for statin therapy, the prevalence of statin use was higher in the cancer group compared with those without cancer (60.8% vs. 47.8%, P < 0.001), regardless of sex, type of indication (primary vs. secondary prevention), and education level. However, the higher prevalence of statin use in the cancer group was noted among younger individuals, ethnic minorities, and those with lower family income.

CONCLUSION

Our finding highlights the importance of optimization of CV health in patients with cancer, as individuals with cancer were more likely to have a Class 1 indication for statin treatment when compared with individuals without cancer. Important differences in statin use among cohorts based on sex, age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were identified, which may provide a framework through which CV risk factor control can be targeted in this population.

KEY FINDINGS

Higher statin use in cancer patients: Among those with Class 1 recommendation to take statins, 60.8% of cancer patients were using them, compared with 47.8% of non-cancer individuals, indicating a greater adherence to heart health recommendations in the cancer group. Demographic variations in statin use: The study found notable differences in statin use among younger individuals, ethnic minorities, and those with lower income within the cancer patient group, suggesting disparities in how these subgroups manage their cardiovascular health.

Bleeding risk prediction after acute myocardial infarction-integrating cancer data: the updated PRECISE-DAPT cancer score

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study assessed the impact of incorporating cancer as a predictor on performance of the PRECISE-DAPT score.

METHODS

A nationally linked cohort of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients between 1 January 2005 and 31 March 2019 was derived from the UK Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and the UK Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care registries. The primary outcome was major bleeding at 1 year. A new modified score was generated by adding cancer as a binary variable to the PRECISE-DAPT score using a Cox regression model and compared its performance to the original PRECISE-DAPT score.

RESULTS

A total of 216 709 ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients were included, of which 4569 had cancer. The original score showed moderate accuracy (C-statistic .60), and the modified score showed modestly higher discrimination (C-statistics .64; hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.04) even in patients without cancer (C-statistics .63; hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.04). The net reclassification index was .07. The bleeding rates of the modified score risk categories (high, moderate, low, and very low bleeding risk) were 6.3%, 3.8%, 2.9%, and 2.2%, respectively. According to the original score, 65.5% of cancer patients were classified as high bleeding risk (HBR) and 21.6% were low or very low bleeding risk. According to the modified score, 94.0% of cancer patients were HBR, 6.0% were moderate bleeding risk, and no cancer patient was classified as low or very low bleeding risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding cancer to the PRECISE-DAPT score identifies the majority of patients with cancer as HBR and can improve its discrimination ability without undermining its performance in patients without cancer.

Socioeconomic and Ethnic Disparities in the Process of Care and Outcomes Among Cancer Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Cancer and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally, with many shared risk factors. There are several challenges to the management of patients with cancer presenting with ACS, owing to their higher baseline risk profile, the complexities of their cancer-related therapies and prognosis, and their higher risk of adverse outcomes after ACS. Although previous studies have demonstrated disparities in the care of both cancer and ACS among patients from ethnic minorities and socioeconomic deprivation, there is limited evidence around the magnitude of such disparities specifically in cancer patients presenting with ACS. This review summarises the current literature on differences in prevalence and management of ACS among patients with cancer from ethnic minorities and socioeconomically deprived backgrounds, as well as the gaps in evidence around the care of this high-risk population and potential solutions.

Ischaemic heart disease in patients with cancer

Cardiologists are encountering a growing number of cancer patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Several factors account for the interrelationship between these two conditions, in addition to improving survival rates in the cancer population. Established cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as hypercholesterolaemia and obesity, predispose to both IHD and cancer, through specific mechanisms and via low-grade, systemic inflammation. This latter is also fuelled by clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Furthermore, experimental work indicates that IHD and cancer can promote one another, and the CV or metabolic toxicity of anticancer therapies can lead to IHD. The connections between IHD and cancer are reinforced by social determinants of health, non-medical factors that modify health outcomes and comprise individual and societal domains, including economic stability, educational and healthcare access and quality, neighbourhood and built environment, and social and community context. Management of IHD in cancer patients is often challenging, due to atypical presentation, increased bleeding and ischaemic risk, and worse outcomes as compared to patients without cancer. The decision to proceed with coronary revascularization and the choice of antithrombotic therapy can be difficult, particularly in patients with chronic coronary syndromes, necessitating multidisciplinary discussion that considers both general guidelines and specific features on a case by case basis. Randomized controlled trial evidence in cancer patients is very limited and there is urgent need for more data to inform clinical practice. Therefore, coexistence of IHD and cancer raises important scientific and practical questions that call for collaborative efforts from the cardio-oncology, cardiology, and oncology communities.