Brent M Egan1, Susan E Sutherland2, William F Childers3, Ruthanne M Dahlheimer4, George A Helmrich5, Daryl A Lapeyrolerie6, Nancy Markle2, Dennis W Murphy7, Locke Simmons8, Robert A Davis2, Peter Tilkemeier9, Angelo Sinopoli10. 1. Care Coordination Institute, Greenville Health System, University of South Carolina School of Medicine-Greenville, 300 East McBee Avenue, Greenville, SC 29601, USA began@ccihealth.org. 2. Care Coordination Institute, Greenville Health System, Greenville, SC, USA. 3. Greenville Health System, Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine-Greenville, Greenville, SC, Laurens Memorial Hospital, Laurens, SC, USA. 4. Greenville Health System, Seneca, SC, USA. 5. Greenville Health System, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of South CarolinaSchool of Medicine-Greenville, Greenville, SC, USA. 6. Greenville Health System, Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine-Greenville, Greenville, SC, USA. 7. Self Regional Healthcare, Piedmont Health Group, Greenwood, SC, USA. 8. Abbeville Area Medical Center, Abbeville, SC, USA. 9. Greenville Health System, Department of Medicine, University of South School of Medicine-Greenville, Greenville, SC, USA. 10. Care Coordination Institute, Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine-Greenville, Greenville Health System, Greenville, SC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Quality and Care Model Committee for a clinically integrated network requested a comparative analysis on the projected cardiovascular benefits of implementing either the 2013 and 2014 cholesterol guideline in a South Carolina patient population. A secondary request was to assess the relative risk of the two guidelines based on the literature. METHODS: Electronic health data were obtained on 1,580,860 adults aged 21-80 years who had had one or more visits from January 2013 to June 2015; 566,688 had data to calculate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD10) risk. Adults with end-stage renal disease (n = 7852), congestive heart failure (n = 19,818), alcohol or drug abuse (n = 68,547), or currently on statins (n = 154,964) were excluded leaving 315,508 for analysis. Estimated reduction in ASCVD10 assumed that: (a) moderate-intensity statins lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 35% and high-intensity statins by 50%; (b) ASCVD events declined 22% for each 1 mmol/l fall in LDL-C. RESULTS: Among the 315,508 adults in the analysis, 131,289 (41.6%) were eligible for statins according to the 2013 guideline and 137,375 (43.5%) to the 2014 guideline. The 2013 and 2014 guidelines were estimated to prevent 6780 and 5915 ASCVD events over 10 years with: (a) relative risk reductions of 29.0% and 21.8%; (b) absolute risk reductions of 5.2% and 4.3%; (c) number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 19 and 23, respectively. The greater projected cardiovascular protection with the 2013 guideline was largely related to greater use of high-dose statins, which carry a greater risk for adverse events. The literature indicates that the NNT for benefit with high-intensity versus moderate-intensity statins is 31 in high-risk patients with a number needed-to-harm of 47. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 guideline is projected to prevent more clinical ASCVD events and with lower NNTs than the 2014 guideline, yet both have substantial benefit. The 2013 guideline is also expected to generate more adverse events, but the risk-benefit profile appears favor .
OBJECTIVES: The Quality and Care Model Committee for a clinically integrated network requested a comparative analysis on the projected cardiovascular benefits of implementing either the 2013 and 2014 cholesterol guideline in a South Carolina patient population. A secondary request was to assess the relative risk of the two guidelines based on the literature. METHODS: Electronic health data were obtained on 1,580,860 adults aged 21-80 years who had had one or more visits from January 2013 to June 2015; 566,688 had data to calculate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD10) risk. Adults with end-stage renal disease (n = 7852), congestive heart failure (n = 19,818), alcohol or drug abuse (n = 68,547), or currently on statins (n = 154,964) were excluded leaving 315,508 for analysis. Estimated reduction in ASCVD10 assumed that: (a) moderate-intensity statins lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 35% and high-intensity statins by 50%; (b) ASCVD events declined 22% for each 1 mmol/l fall in LDL-C. RESULTS: Among the 315,508 adults in the analysis, 131,289 (41.6%) were eligible for statins according to the 2013 guideline and 137,375 (43.5%) to the 2014 guideline. The 2013 and 2014 guidelines were estimated to prevent 6780 and 5915 ASCVD events over 10 years with: (a) relative risk reductions of 29.0% and 21.8%; (b) absolute risk reductions of 5.2% and 4.3%; (c) number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 19 and 23, respectively. The greater projected cardiovascular protection with the 2013 guideline was largely related to greater use of high-dose statins, which carry a greater risk for adverse events. The literature indicates that the NNT for benefit with high-intensity versus moderate-intensity statins is 31 in high-risk patients with a number needed-to-harm of 47. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 guideline is projected to prevent more clinical ASCVD events and with lower NNTs than the 2014 guideline, yet both have substantial benefit. The 2013 guideline is also expected to generate more adverse events, but the risk-benefit profile appears favor .
Authors: Seth S Martin; Thura T Abd; Steven R Jones; Erin D Michos; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David Preiss; Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai; Paul Welsh; Sabina A Murphy; Jennifer E Ho; David D Waters; David A DeMicco; Philip Barter; Christopher P Cannon; Marc S Sabatine; Eugene Braunwald; John J P Kastelein; James A de Lemos; Michael A Blazing; Terje R Pedersen; Matti J Tikkanen; Naveed Sattar; Kausik K Ray Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: F M Sacks; M A Pfeffer; L A Moye; J L Rouleau; J D Rutherford; T G Cole; L Brown; J W Warnica; J M Arnold; C C Wun; B R Davis; E Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T Craig Cheetham; Fang Niu; Kelley Green; Ronald D Scott; Stephen F Derose; Southida S Vansomphone; Janet Shin; Kaan Tunceli; Kristi Reynolds Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2013-06
Authors: Paul Muntner; Emily B Levitan; Todd M Brown; Pradeep Sharma; Hong Zhao; Vera Bittner; Stephen Glasser; Meredith Kilgore; Huifeng Yun; J Michael Woolley; Michael E Farkouh; Robert S Rosenson Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Niteesh K Choudhry; Aaron S Kesselheim; Jennifer M Polinski; David Hutchins; Olga S Matlin; Troyen A Brennan; Jerry Avorn; William H Shrank Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: C Baigent; L Blackwell; J Emberson; L E Holland; C Reith; N Bhala; R Peto; E H Barnes; A Keech; J Simes; R Collins Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321