C Gong1, Q P Liu1, J M Wang1, X F Liu1, M L Zhang1, H Yang1, P Shen2, H B Lin2, X Tang1, P Gao1,3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China. 2. Yinzhou District Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Ningbo 315101, Zhejiang, China. 3. Center of Real-World Evidence Evaluation, Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing 100191, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of statin treatment strategies based on risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by the Western guidelines in a community-based Chinese population from economically developed areas using data from the Chinese electronic health records research in Yinzhou (CHERRY) study. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the following statin treatment strategies, including: (1) usual care without cardiovascular risk assessment(Strategy 0); (2) using the World Health Organization (WHO) non-laboratory-based risk charts with statin treatment for high-risk group (risk ≥ 20%) (Strategy 1); (3) using the WHO laboratory-based risk charts with statin treatment for high-risk group (risk ≥ 20%) (Strategy 2); and (4) using the Prediction for Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Risk in China (China-PAR) model with statin treatment for high-risk group (risk ≥ 10%, Strategy 3). According to the guidelines, adults in the medium-risk group received lifestyle intervention, and adults in the high-risk group received life-style intervention and statin treatment under these strategies. The Markov model simulated different strategies for ten years (cycles) using parameters from the CHERRY study, published data, meta-analyses and systematic reviews for Chinese. The number of cardiovascular events or deaths, as well as the number need to treat (NNT) with statin per cardiovascular event or death prevented, were calculated to compare the effectiveness of different strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis on the uncertainty of incidence rate of cardiovascular diseases, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis on the uncertainty of hazard ratios of interventions were conducted. RESULTS: Totally 225 811 Chinese adults aged 40-79 years without cardiovascular diseases at baseline were enrolled. In contrast to the usual care without risk assessment-based statin treatment strategy, Strategy 1 using the WHO non-laboratory-based risk charts could prevent 3 482 [95% uncertainty interval (UI): 2 110-4 661] cardiovascular events, Strategy 2 using the WHO laboratory-based risk charts could prevent 3 685 (95%UI: 2 255-4 912) events, and Strategy 3 using the China-PAR model could prevent 3 895 (95%UI: 2 396-5 181) events. NNTs with statin per cardiovascular event prevented were 22 (95%UI: 14-54), 21 (95%UI: 14-52), and 27 (95%UI: 17-67), respectively. Strategy 3 could prevent more cardiovascular events, while Strategies 1 and 2 required fewer numbers need to treat with statin per cardiovascular event prevented. The results were consistent in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The statin treatment strategies based on risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases recommended by the Western guidelines could achieve substantive health benefits in adults from developed areas of China. Using the China-PAR model for cardiovascular risk assessment could prevent more cardiovascular diseases while using the WHO risk charts seems more efficient.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of statin treatment strategies based on risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by the Western guidelines in a community-based Chinese population from economically developed areas using data from the Chinese electronic health records research in Yinzhou (CHERRY) study. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the following statin treatment strategies, including: (1) usual care without cardiovascular risk assessment(Strategy 0); (2) using the World Health Organization (WHO) non-laboratory-based risk charts with statin treatment for high-risk group (risk ≥ 20%) (Strategy 1); (3) using the WHO laboratory-based risk charts with statin treatment for high-risk group (risk ≥ 20%) (Strategy 2); and (4) using the Prediction for Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Risk in China (China-PAR) model with statin treatment for high-risk group (risk ≥ 10%, Strategy 3). According to the guidelines, adults in the medium-risk group received lifestyle intervention, and adults in the high-risk group received life-style intervention and statin treatment under these strategies. The Markov model simulated different strategies for ten years (cycles) using parameters from the CHERRY study, published data, meta-analyses and systematic reviews for Chinese. The number of cardiovascular events or deaths, as well as the number need to treat (NNT) with statin per cardiovascular event or death prevented, were calculated to compare the effectiveness of different strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis on the uncertainty of incidence rate of cardiovascular diseases, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis on the uncertainty of hazard ratios of interventions were conducted. RESULTS: Totally 225 811 Chinese adults aged 40-79 years without cardiovascular diseases at baseline were enrolled. In contrast to the usual care without risk assessment-based statin treatment strategy, Strategy 1 using the WHO non-laboratory-based risk charts could prevent 3 482 [95% uncertainty interval (UI): 2 110-4 661] cardiovascular events, Strategy 2 using the WHO laboratory-based risk charts could prevent 3 685 (95%UI: 2 255-4 912) events, and Strategy 3 using the China-PAR model could prevent 3 895 (95%UI: 2 396-5 181) events. NNTs with statin per cardiovascular event prevented were 22 (95%UI: 14-54), 21 (95%UI: 14-52), and 27 (95%UI: 17-67), respectively. Strategy 3 could prevent more cardiovascular events, while Strategies 1 and 2 required fewer numbers need to treat with statin per cardiovascular event prevented. The results were consistent in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The statin treatment strategies based on risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases recommended by the Western guidelines could achieve substantive health benefits in adults from developed areas of China. Using the China-PAR model for cardiovascular risk assessment could prevent more cardiovascular diseases while using the WHO risk charts seems more efficient.
Authors: Rory Collins; Christina Reith; Jonathan Emberson; Jane Armitage; Colin Baigent; Lisa Blackwell; Roger Blumenthal; John Danesh; George Davey Smith; David DeMets; Stephen Evans; Malcolm Law; Stephen MacMahon; Seth Martin; Bruce Neal; Neil Poulter; David Preiss; Paul Ridker; Ian Roberts; Anthony Rodgers; Peter Sandercock; Kenneth Schulz; Peter Sever; John Simes; Liam Smeeth; Nicholas Wald; Salim Yusuf; Richard Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Jackie Bosch; Gilles Dagenais; Jun Zhu; Denis Xavier; Lisheng Liu; Prem Pais; Patricio López-Jaramillo; Lawrence A Leiter; Antonio Dans; Alvaro Avezum; Leopoldo S Piegas; Alexander Parkhomenko; Katalin Keltai; Matyas Keltai; Karen Sliwa; Ron J G Peters; Claes Held; Irina Chazova; Khalid Yusoff; Basil S Lewis; Petr Jansky; Kamlesh Khunti; William D Toff; Christopher M Reid; John Varigos; Gregorio Sanchez-Vallejo; Robert McKelvie; Janice Pogue; Hyejung Jung; Peggy Gao; Rafael Diaz; Eva Lonn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Q P Liu; X J Chen; J M Wang; X F Liu; Y Q Si; J Y Liang; P Shen; H B Lin; X Tang; P Gao Journal: Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban Date: 2021-06-18
Authors: Glen J Pearson; George Thanassoulis; Todd J Anderson; Arden R Barry; Patrick Couture; Natalie Dayan; Gordon A Francis; Jacques Genest; Jean Grégoire; Steven A Grover; Milan Gupta; Robert A Hegele; David Lau; Lawrence A Leiter; Alexander A Leung; Eva Lonn; G B John Mancini; Priya Manjoo; Ruth McPherson; Daniel Ngui; Marie-Eve Piché; Paul Poirier; John Sievenpiper; James Stone; Rick Ward; Wendy Wray Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Ting Cai; Lucy Abel; Oliver Langford; Genevieve Monaghan; Jeffrey K Aronson; Richard J Stevens; Sarah Lay-Flurrie; Constantinos Koshiaris; Richard J McManus; F D Richard Hobbs; James P Sheppard Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-07-14