George Thanassoulis1, Ken Williams2, Kathleen Kimler Altobelli2, Michael J Pencina2, Christopher P Cannon2, Allan D Sniderman2. 1. From Preventive and Genomic Cardiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Center and Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada (G.T., A.D.S.); KenAnCo Biostatistics, San Antonio, TX (K.W., K.K.); Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (K.W.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (M.J.P.); and Harvard Clinical Research Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (C.P.C.). george.thanassoulis@mcgill.ca. 2. From Preventive and Genomic Cardiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Center and Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada (G.T., A.D.S.); KenAnCo Biostatistics, San Antonio, TX (K.W., K.K.); Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (K.W.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (M.J.P.); and Harvard Clinical Research Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (C.P.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on the basis of predicted cardiovascular risk without directly considering the expected benefits of statin therapy based on the available randomized, controlled trial evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 2134 participants representing 71.8 million American residents potentially eligible for statins in primary prevention from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for the years 2005 to 2010. We compared statin eligibilities using 2 separate approaches: a 10-year risk-based approach (≥7.5% 10-year risk) and an individualized benefit approach (ie, based on predicted absolute risk reduction over 10 years [ARR10] ≥2.3% from randomized, controlled trial data). A risk-based approach led to the eligibility of 15.0 million (95% confidence interval, 12.7-17.3 million) Americans, whereas a benefit-based approach identified 24.6 million (95% confidence interval, 21.0-28.1 million). The corresponding numbers needed to treat over 10 years were 21 (range, 9-44) and 25 (range, 9-44). The benefit-based approach identified 9.5 million lower-risk (<7.5% 10-year risk) Americans not currently eligible for statin treatment who had the same or greater expected benefit from statins (≥2.3% ARR10) compared with higher-risk individuals. This lower-risk/acceptable-benefit group includes younger individuals (mean age, 55.2 versus 62.5 years; P<0.001 for benefit based versus risk based) with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (140 versus133 mg/dL; P=0.01). Statin treatment in this group would be expected to prevent an additional 266 508 cardiovascular events over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized statin benefit approach can identify lower-risk individuals who have equal or greater expected benefit from statins in primary prevention compared with higher-risk individuals. This approach may help develop guideline recommendations that better identify individuals who meaningfully benefit from statin therapy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on the basis of predicted cardiovascular risk without directly considering the expected benefits of statin therapy based on the available randomized, controlled trial evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 2134 participants representing 71.8 million American residents potentially eligible for statins in primary prevention from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for the years 2005 to 2010. We compared statin eligibilities using 2 separate approaches: a 10-year risk-based approach (≥7.5% 10-year risk) and an individualized benefit approach (ie, based on predicted absolute risk reduction over 10 years [ARR10] ≥2.3% from randomized, controlled trial data). A risk-based approach led to the eligibility of 15.0 million (95% confidence interval, 12.7-17.3 million) Americans, whereas a benefit-based approach identified 24.6 million (95% confidence interval, 21.0-28.1 million). The corresponding numbers needed to treat over 10 years were 21 (range, 9-44) and 25 (range, 9-44). The benefit-based approach identified 9.5 million lower-risk (<7.5% 10-year risk) Americans not currently eligible for statin treatment who had the same or greater expected benefit from statins (≥2.3% ARR10) compared with higher-risk individuals. This lower-risk/acceptable-benefit group includes younger individuals (mean age, 55.2 versus 62.5 years; P<0.001 for benefit based versus risk based) with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (140 versus133 mg/dL; P=0.01). Statin treatment in this group would be expected to prevent an additional 266 508 cardiovascular events over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized statin benefit approach can identify lower-risk individuals who have equal or greater expected benefit from statins in primary prevention compared with higher-risk individuals. This approach may help develop guideline recommendations that better identify individuals who meaningfully benefit from statin therapy.
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: 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: Karol M Pencina; George Thanassoulis; John T Wilkins; Ramachandran S Vasan; Ann Marie Navar; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Pencina; Allan D Sniderman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Rachel G Miller; Hemant D Mahajan; Tina Costacou; Akira Sekikawa; Stewart J Anderson; Trevor J Orchard Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jorge A Zamora-Legoff; Elena Myasoedova; Eric L Matteson; Sara J Achenbach; Cynthia S Crowson Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 2.980