Background Accurate risk assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is essential to effectively balance the risks and benefits of therapy for primary prevention. Objective To compare the calibration and discrimination of the new American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) ASCVD risk score with alternative risk scores and to explore preventive therapy as a cause of the reported risk overestimation using the AHA-ACC-ASCVD score. Design Prospective epidemiologic study of ASCVD. Setting MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), a community-based, sex-balanced, multiethnic cohort. Patients 4227 MESA participants aged 50 to 74 years and without diabetes at baseline. Measurements Observed and expected events for the AHA-ACC-ASCVD score were compared with 4 commonly used risk scores—and their respective end points—in MESA after a 10.2-year follow-up. Results The new AHA-ACC-ASCVD and 3 older Framingham-based risk scores overestimated cardiovascular events by 37% to 154% in men and 8% to 67% in women. Overestimation was noted throughout the continuum of risk. In contrast, the Reynolds Risk Score overestimated risk by 9% in men but underestimated risk by 21% in women. Aspirin, lipid-lowering or antihypertensive therapy, and interim revascularization did not explain the overestimation. Limitation Comparability of MESA with target populations for primary prevention and possibility of missed events in MESA. Conclusion Of the 5 risk scores, 4, including the new AHA-ACC-ASCVD score, showed overestimation of risk (25% to 115%) in a modern, multiethnic cohort without baseline clinical ASCVD. If validated, overestimation of ASCVD risk may have substantial implications for individual patients and the health care system. Primary Funding Source National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Summary Donor liver allografts with positive serology for hepatitis B core antibody [HBc (+)] have been increasingly used for liver transplantation. However, the optimal prophylactic regimen to prevent development of de novo hepatitis B has not been determined. To evaluate this, we screened United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) registry data for adult recipients of HBc (+) organs who were HBsAg (−), and evaluated the effects of using prophylactic anti‐viral therapies (HBIG and lamivudine) on patient and graft survival. Out of a total cohort of 958 patients transplanted since 2004, 61 received HBIG alone, 116 received lamivudine alone, 66 both, 509 neither and 206 were missing this information. Based on several multivariable Cox regression models, patients receiving HBIG therapy‐only were observed to have a statistically significant (approximately 70%) reduction in risk of mortality compared with patients receiving lamivudine‐only therapy [HR = 0.29, 95% CI (0.10, 0.86), P = 0.026], and a nonstatistically significant reduction in risk of graft failure. However, no graft failures were attributed to de novo hepatitis B, suggesting that any improved graft/patient survival possibly associated with HBIG therapy occurs independently of de novo hepatitis B virus (HBV) reduction. While this study cannot prove that HBIG therapy is protective for graft and patient survival after liver transplantation, these findings do highlight the need to further examine and study prophylactic use in recipients of HBc (+) donors.

No abstract