Literature DB >> 10483959

The relative influence of secondary versus primary prevention using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II guidelines.

L Goldman1, P Coxson, M G Hunink, P A Goldman, A N Tosteson, M Mittleman, L Williams, M C Weinstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to project the population-wide effect of full implementation of the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) II guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).
BACKGROUND: The ATP II has proposed guidelines for cholesterol reduction, but the long-term epidemiologic influence of its components has not been fully examined.
METHODS: We used a calibrated, validated simulation of the U.S. population, aged 35 to 84 years to estimate the potential for the NCEP guidelines, under varying assumptions, to reduce coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality and overall mortality from the years 2000 to 2020.
RESULTS: Primary prevention would yield only about half of the benefits of secondary prevention despite requiring nearly twice as many person-years of treatment. The projected increase in quality-adjusted years of life per year of treatment for secondary prevention was 3- to 12-fold higher than for primary prevention. To yield population-wide epidemiologic benefits equivalent to NCEP recommendations for secondary prevention, primary prevention would require a nearly sixfold increase in the number of persons treated compared with NCEP recommendations. All benefits of universal success of the NCEP primary prevention "screen and treat" guidelines could be achieved by a 11 mg/dl (8%) population-wide reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels among persons without preexisting coronary heart disease.
CONCLUSIONS: The NCEP guidelines for targeted primary prevention can be a useful component of a rational public health strategy, but only as a complement to the more appealing strategies of secondary prevention and "across-the-board" programs to lower all cholesterol levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10483959     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00260-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  6 in total

1.  Are investments in disease prevention complements? The case of statins and health behaviors.

Authors:  Robert Kaestner; Michael Darden; Darius Lakdawalla
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Preventing cardiovascular disease among Canadians: is the treatment of hypertension or dyslipidemia cost-effective?

Authors:  Steven Grover; Louis Coupal; Ilka Lowensteyn
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 5.223

3.  Perceptions of quality-of-life effects of treatments for diabetes mellitus in vulnerable and nonvulnerable older patients.

Authors:  Sydney E S Brown; David O Meltzer; Marshall H Chin; Elbert S Huang
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-05-19       Impact factor: 5.562

4.  Epidemiological theory, decision theory and mental health services research.

Authors:  Scott B Patten; Robert C Lee
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.328

5.  National trends in statin use by coronary heart disease risk category.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Niraj L Sehgal; John Z Ayanian; Randall S Stafford
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-05-31       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  The future impact of population growth and aging on coronary heart disease in China: projections from the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model-China.

Authors:  Andrew Moran; Dong Zhao; Dongfeng Gu; Pamela Coxson; Chung-Shiuan Chen; Jun Cheng; Jing Liu; Jiang He; Lee Goldman
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.