ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Coronary Artery Calcium Score to Refine the Use of PCSK9i in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Multicohort Study.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saudi Heart Association Position Statement on Early Detection of Subclinical Atherosclerosis in Clinical Practice.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Article
- Age- and sex-based heterogeneity in coronary artery plaque presence and burden in familial hypercholesterolemia: A multi-national study.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2024Article
- Imaging subclinical coronary atherosclerosis to guide lipid management, are we there yet?American journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.