Handrean Soran1, Jonathan D Schofield1, Paul N Durrington2. 1. Cardiovascular Research Group, School of Biomedicine, University of Manchester, Core Technology Facility (3rd Floor), 46 Grafton Street, Manchester M13 9NT, UK Cardiovascular Trials Unit, University Department of Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 2. Cardiovascular Research Group, School of Biomedicine, University of Manchester, Core Technology Facility (3rd Floor), 46 Grafton Street, Manchester M13 9NT, UK pdurrington@manchester.ac.uk.
Abstract
AIMS: Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins, including the most recent, fail to make the best use of the evidence from clinical trials by concentrating on absolute CVD risk as a statin indication and not also considering that a major determinant of therapeutic benefit is the magnitude of the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (or non-HDL) cholesterol reduction achieved. This decrease is proportional to the pretreatment concentration. We set out to apply this knowledge to the calculation of the number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNT) and to assess critically how current guidelines performed at different degrees of CVD risk across a range of LDL (or non-HDL) cholesterol concentrations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Number needed to treat to prevent one event revealed exclusion from the treatment of some people with higher cholesterol levels, who may benefit more than others needlessly exposed to statins with no realistic prospect of benefit. Furthermore, abandonment of cholesterol therapeutic goals disadvantaged people with higher levels. CONCLUSION: These problems can be overcome by basing the decision to treat on the NNT calculated both from absolute CVD risk and also on the LDL (or non-HDL) cholesterol reduction achievable with statin treatment. This need not adds an additional layer of complexity for the clinician, because computer programmes already used to estimate CVD risk could be easily amended, thus permitting more effective deployment of statins in the population. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins, including the most recent, fail to make the best use of the evidence from clinical trials by concentrating on absolute CVD risk as a statin indication and not also considering that a major determinant of therapeutic benefit is the magnitude of the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (or non-HDL) cholesterol reduction achieved. This decrease is proportional to the pretreatment concentration. We set out to apply this knowledge to the calculation of the number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNT) and to assess critically how current guidelines performed at different degrees of CVD risk across a range of LDL (or non-HDL) cholesterol concentrations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Number needed to treat to prevent one event revealed exclusion from the treatment of some people with higher cholesterol levels, who may benefit more than others needlessly exposed to statins with no realistic prospect of benefit. Furthermore, abandonment of cholesterol therapeutic goals disadvantaged people with higher levels. CONCLUSION: These problems can be overcome by basing the decision to treat on the NNT calculated both from absolute CVD risk and also on the LDL (or non-HDL) cholesterol reduction achievable with statin treatment. This need not adds an additional layer of complexity for the clinician, because computer programmes already used to estimate CVD risk could be easily amended, thus permitting more effective deployment of statins in the population. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ciaran N Kohli-Lynch; Brandon K Bellows; George Thanassoulis; Yiyi Zhang; Mark J Pletcher; Eric Vittinghoff; Michael J Pencina; Dhruv Kazi; Allan D Sniderman; Andrew E Moran Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Christopher Carroll; Paul Tappenden; Rachid Rafia; Jean Hamilton; Duncan Chambers; Mark Clowes; Paul Durrington; Nadeem Qureshi; Anthony S Wierzbicki Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Chris J Packard; Robin Young; Kevin Ross; Ian Ford; Baishali M Ambegaonkar; Philippe Brudi; Colin McCowan Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2017-10-01
Authors: Juan C Díaz-Zagoya; Alejandro Marín-Medina; Alma M Zetina-Esquivel; Jorge L Blé-Castillo; Andrés E Castell-Rodríguez; Isela E Juárez-Rojop; Rodrigo Miranda-Zamora Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Handrean Soran; Safwaan Adam; Jamal B Mohammad; Jan H Ho; Jonathan D Schofield; See Kwok; Tarza Siahmansur; Yifen Liu; Akheel A Syed; Shaishav S Dhage; Claudia Stefanutti; Rachelle Donn; Rayaz A Malik; Maciej Banach; Paul N Durrington Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.318