Martin B Mortensen1, Shoaib Afzal2, Børge G Nordestgaard3, Erling Falk1. 1. Atherosclerosis Research Unit, Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Biochemistry and the Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Biochemistry and the Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: boerge.nordestgaard@regionh.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend initiating primary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with statins based on absolute ASCVD risk assessment. Recently, alternative trial-based and hybrid approaches were suggested for statin treatment eligibility. OBJECTIVES: This study compared these approaches in a direct head-to-head fashion in a contemporary population. METHODS: The study used the CGPS (Copenhagen General Population Study) with 37,892 subjects aged 40 to 75 years recruited in 2003 to 2008, all free of ASCVD, diabetes, and statin use at baseline. RESULTS:Among the population studied, 42% were eligible for statin therapy according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk assessment and cholesterol treatment guidelines approach, versus 56% with the trial-based approach and 21% with the hybrid approach. Among these statin-eligible subjects, the ASCVD event rate per 1,000 person-years was 9.8, 6.8, and 11.2, respectively. The ACC/AHA-recommended absolute risk score was well calibrated around the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk treatment threshold and discriminated better than the trial-based or hybrid approaches. Compared with the ACC/AHA risk-based approach, the net reclassification index for eligibility for statin therapy among 40- to 75-year-old subjects from the CGPS was -0.21 for the trial-based approach and -0.13 for the hybrid approach. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of the ACC/AHA risk-based approach for primary prevention of ASCVD with statins was superior to the trial-based and hybrid approaches. Our results indicate that the ACC/AHA guidelines will prevent more ASCVD events than the trial-based and hybrid approaches, while treating fewer people compared with the trial-based approach.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend initiating primary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with statins based on absolute ASCVD risk assessment. Recently, alternative trial-based and hybrid approaches were suggested for statin treatment eligibility. OBJECTIVES: This study compared these approaches in a direct head-to-head fashion in a contemporary population. METHODS: The study used the CGPS (Copenhagen General Population Study) with 37,892 subjects aged 40 to 75 years recruited in 2003 to 2008, all free of ASCVD, diabetes, and statin use at baseline. RESULTS: Among the population studied, 42% were eligible for statin therapy according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk assessment and cholesterol treatment guidelines approach, versus 56% with the trial-based approach and 21% with the hybrid approach. Among these statin-eligible subjects, the ASCVD event rate per 1,000 person-years was 9.8, 6.8, and 11.2, respectively. The ACC/AHA-recommended absolute risk score was well calibrated around the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk treatment threshold and discriminated better than the trial-based or hybrid approaches. Compared with the ACC/AHA risk-based approach, the net reclassification index for eligibility for statin therapy among 40- to 75-year-old subjects from the CGPS was -0.21 for the trial-based approach and -0.13 for the hybrid approach. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of the ACC/AHA risk-based approach for primary prevention of ASCVD with statins was superior to the trial-based and hybrid approaches. Our results indicate that the ACC/AHA guidelines will prevent more ASCVD events than the trial-based and hybrid approaches, while treating fewer people compared with the trial-based approach.
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Deborah Korenstein; Rubaya Yeahia; Peter B Bach; Shrujal S Baxi Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ranganath Muniyappa; Radwa A Noureldin; Khaled Z Abd-Elmoniem; Riham H El Khouli; Jatin Raj Matta; Ahmed Hamimi; Siri Ranganath; Colleen Hadigan; Lynnette K Nieman; Ahmed M Gharib Journal: Cardiorenal Med Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark D Huffman; Kunal N Karmali; Darshak M Sanghavi; Janet S Wright; Colleen Pelser; Martha Gulati; Frederick A Masoudi; David C Goff Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark D Huffman; Kunal N Karmali; Darshak M Sanghavi; Janet S Wright; Colleen Pelser; Martha Gulati; Frederick A Masoudi; David C Goff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Donna K Arnett; Roger S Blumenthal; Michelle A Albert; Andrew B Buroker; Zachary D Goldberger; Ellen J Hahn; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Amit Khera; Donald Lloyd-Jones; J William McEvoy; Erin D Michos; Michael D Miedema; Daniel Muñoz; Sidney C Smith; Salim S Virani; Kim A Williams; Joseph Yeboah; Boback Ziaeian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094