H C Price1, R L Coleman, R J Stevens, R R Holman. 1. Diabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. Hermione.Price@dtu.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of using a non-diabetes-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator to determine eligibility for statin therapy according to current UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for those patients with type 2 diabetes who are at an increased risk of CVD (10 year risk >or=20%). METHODS: The 10 year CVD risks were estimated using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine and the Framingham equation for 4,025 patients enrolled in the Lipids in Diabetes Study who had established type 2 diabetes and LDL-cholesterol <4.1 mmol/l. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the patients was 60.7 (8.6) years, blood pressure 141/83 (17/10) mmHg and the total cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio was 3.9 (1.0). The median (interquartile range) diabetes duration was 6 (3-11) years and the HbA(1c) level was 8.0% (7.2-9.0%). The cohort comprised 65% men, 91% whites, 4% Afro-Caribbeans, 5% Asian Indians and 15% current smokers. More patients were classified as being at high risk by the UKPDS Risk Engine (65%) than by the Framingham CVD equation (63%) (p < 0.0001). The Framingham CVD equation classified fewer men and people aged <50 years old as high risk (p < 0.0001). There was no difference between the UKPDS Risk Engine and Framingham classification of women at high risk (p = 0.834). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that the use of Framingham-derived rather than UKPDS Risk Engine-derived CVD risk estimates would deny about one in 25 patients statin therapy when applying current NICE guidelines. Thus, under these guidelines the choice of CVD risk calculator is important when assessing CVD risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly for the identification of the relatively small proportion of younger people who require statin therapy.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of using a non-diabetes-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator to determine eligibility for statin therapy according to current UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for those patients with type 2 diabetes who are at an increased risk of CVD (10 year risk >or=20%). METHODS: The 10 year CVD risks were estimated using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine and the Framingham equation for 4,025 patients enrolled in the Lipids in Diabetes Study who had established type 2 diabetes and LDL-cholesterol <4.1 mmol/l. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the patients was 60.7 (8.6) years, blood pressure 141/83 (17/10) mmHg and the total cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio was 3.9 (1.0). The median (interquartile range) diabetes duration was 6 (3-11) years and the HbA(1c) level was 8.0% (7.2-9.0%). The cohort comprised 65% men, 91% whites, 4% Afro-Caribbeans, 5% Asian Indians and 15% current smokers. More patients were classified as being at high risk by the UKPDS Risk Engine (65%) than by the Framingham CVD equation (63%) (p < 0.0001). The Framingham CVD equation classified fewer men and people aged <50 years old as high risk (p < 0.0001). There was no difference between the UKPDS Risk Engine and Framingham classification of women at high risk (p = 0.834). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that the use of Framingham-derived rather than UKPDS Risk Engine-derived CVD risk estimates would deny about one in 25 patients statin therapy when applying current NICE guidelines. Thus, under these guidelines the choice of CVD risk calculator is important when assessing CVD risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly for the identification of the relatively small proportion of younger people who require statin therapy.
Authors: Marina Maggini; Roberto Raschetti; Giuseppe Traversa; Clara Bianchi; Bruno Caffari; Roberto Da Cas; Pietro Panei Journal: Health Policy Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Qiuping Gu; Yiling J Cheng; K M Venkat Narayan; Catherine C Cowie Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Guy De Backer; Ettore Ambrosioni; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Carlos Brotons; Renata Cifkova; Jean Dallongeville; Shah Ebrahim; Ole Faergeman; Ian Graham; Giuseppe Mancia; Volkert Manger Cats; Kristina Orth-Gomér; Joep Perk; Kalevi Pyörälä; José L Rodicio; Susana Sans; Vedat Sansoy; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Troels Thomsen; David Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrew Farmer; Alisha Wade; Elizabeth Goyder; Patricia Yudkin; David French; Anthea Craven; Rury Holman; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Andrew Neil Journal: BMJ Date: 2007-06-25
Authors: Marilia B Gomes; Daniel Giannella-Neto; Manuel Faria; Marcos Tambascia; Reine M Fonseca; Rosangela Rea; Geisa Macedo; João Modesto-Filho; Helena Schmid; Alcina V Bittencourt; Saulo Cavalcanti; Nelson Rassi; Hermelinda Pedrosa; Sergio A Dib Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 3.320