Dataset Information

Modified treatment approach using cardiovascular disease risk calculator for primary prevention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The recent guidelines for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events are an important advancement. For primary prevention, statins are recommended if the ten-year risk is ? 5% (consideration for therapy) or ? 7.5% (definitive treatment unless contraindication after discussion). We rationalized that a significant cohort with ten-year risk below the treatment thresholds would predictably surpass them within the recommended 4-6 year window for reassessing the ten-year risk. As atherosclerosis is a progressive disease, these individuals may therefore benefit with more aggressive therapies even at baseline.

Methods and findings

We used publicly available NHANES dataset for ten-year risk calculation. There were 1805 participants. To evaluate the ten-year risk change at five years, we considered two scenarios: no change in the baseline parameters except increased age by five (No Change) and alternatively 10% improvement in systolic BP, total and HDL-c, no smoking with five-year increase in age (Reduced Risk Profile). Amongst non-diabetics with <5% risk at baseline, 35% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (5% reached or exceed the 7.5% risk) with No Change and 9% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (none reached 7.5% risk) with Reduced Risk Profile; furthermore, 94% of the non-diabetic cohort with baseline risk between 3.5%-5% would exceed the 5% and/or 7.5% boundary limit with No Change. Amongst non-diabetics with 5-7.5% baseline risks, 87% reached or exceeded 7.5% with No Change while 30% reached or exceeded 7.5% risk with Reduced Risk Profile.

Conclusions

A significant population cohort at levels below the treatment thresholds will predictably exceed these limits with time with or without improvement in modifiable risk factors and may benefit with more aggressive therapy at baseline. We provide an improved risk calculator that allows for integrating expected risk modification into discussion with an individual. This needs to be prospectively tested in clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Gupta H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4131882 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Modified treatment approach using cardiovascular disease risk calculator for primary prevention.

Gupta Himanshu H Schiros Chun G CG Denney Thomas S TS

PloS one 20140813 8

<h4>Background</h4>The recent guidelines for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events are an important advancement. For primary prevention, statins are recommended if the ten-year risk is ≥ 5% (consideration for therapy) or ≥ 7.5% (definitive treatment unless contraindication after discussion). We rationalized that a significant cohort with ten-year risk below the treatment thresholds would predictably surpass them within the recommended 4-6 year window for reassessing the ten-year risk. ...[more]

PMID: 25119719

Similar Datasets

Project description:Statin therapy is the cornerstone of preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), primarily by reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Optimal statin therapy decisions rely on shared decision making and may be uncertain for a given patient. In areas of clinical uncertainty, personalized approaches based on real-world data may help inform treatment decisions. We sought to develop a personalized statin recommendation approach for primary ASCVD prevention based on historical real-world outcomes in similar patients. Our retrospective cohort included adults from a large Northern California electronic health record (EHR) aged 40-79 years with no prior cardiovascular disease or statin use. The cohort was split into training and test sets. Weighted-K-nearest-neighbor (wKNN) regression models were used to identify historical EHR patients similar to a candidate patient. We modeled four statin decisions for each patient: none, low-intensity, moderate-intensity, and high-intensity. For each candidate patient, the algorithm recommended the statin decision that was associated with the greatest percentage reduction in LDL-C after 1 year in similar patients. The overall cohort consisted of 50,576 patients (age 54.6 ± 9.8 years) with 55% female, 48% non-Hispanic White, 32% Asian, and 7.4% Hispanic patients. Among 8383 test-set patients, 52%, 44%, and 4% were recommended high-, moderate-, and low-intensity statins, respectively, for a maximum predicted average 1-yr LDL-C reduction of 16.9%, 20.4%, and 14.9%, in each group, respectively. Overall, using aggregate EHR data, a personalized statin recommendation approach identified the statin intensity associated with the greatest LDL-C reduction in historical patients similar to a candidate patient. Recommendations included low- or moderate-intensity statins for maximum LDL-C lowering in nearly half the test set, which is discordant with their expected guideline-based efficacy. A data-driven personalized statin recommendation approach may inform shared decision making in areas of uncertainty, and highlight unexpected efficacy-effectiveness gaps.

Project description:BackgroundOur objectives were to critically appraise and summarise the current evidence for the effectiveness of using cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scoring (total risk assessment - TRA) in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD compared with standard care with regards to patients outcomes, clinical risk factor levels, medication prescribing, and adverse effects.MethodsWe carried out an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs). Presentation of the results aligned guidelines from the PRISMA statement. The data is presented as a narrative synthesis. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CENTRAL and SCOPUS databases from January 1990 to March 2017, reviewed the reference lists of all included SRs and searched for ongoing SRs in PROSPERO database. We encompassed SRs and meta-analyses which took into account RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and observational studies investigating the effect of using CVD risk scoring. Only studies performed in a primary care setting, with adult participants free of clinical CVD were eligible. Intervention was CVD risk assessment with use of the total CVD risk scoring compared with standard care with no use of TRA .ResultsWe identified 2157 records, we then recognised and analysed 10 relevant SRs. One SR reported statistically insignificant reduction of CVD death, when using TRA, the second SR presented meta-analysis which reported no effect on fatal and non-fatal CV events compared with conventional care (5.4% vs 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08; I2?=?25%). Three SRs have shown that using TRA causes no adverse events. The impact of TRA on global CVD risk as well as individual risk factors is ambiguous, but a tendency towards slight reduction of blood pressure, total cholesterol and smoking levels, especially in high risk patient groups was observed. TRA had no influence on lifestyle behaviour.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence, of low overall quality, suggesting a possible lack of effectiveness of TRA in reducing CVD events and mortality, as well as a clinically insignificant influence on individual risk factor levels. Using TRA does not cause harm to patients.Trial registrationSystematic review protocol was registered with the International PROSPERO database - registration number CRD42016046898 .

Project description:To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults.Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials.Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking.We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22?mm?Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I2=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11?mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I2=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15?mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I2=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I2=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12?months (range 2-36?months).The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs.CRD42015019821.

Project description:BackgroundSocioeconomic deprivation is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Whether deprivation status should be incorporated in more cardiovascular risk estimation scores remains unclear. This study evaluates how socioeconomic deprivation status affects the performance of 3 primary prevention cardiovascular risk scores.MethodsThe Generation Scotland Scottish Family Health Study was used to evaluate the performance of 3 cardiovascular risk scores with (ASSIGN [Assessing cardiovascular risk using SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) guidelines to ASSIGN preventive treatment]) and without (SCORE2 [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 algorithm], Pooled Cohort Equations) socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate in the risk prediction model. Deprivation was defined by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation score. The predicted 10-year risk was evaluated against the observed event rate for the cardiovascular outcome of each risk score. The comparison was made across 3 groups defined by the deprivation index score consisting of group 1 defined as most deprived, group 3 defined as least deprived, and group 2, which consisted of individuals in the middle deprivation categories.ResultsThe study population consisted of 15 506 individuals (60.0% female, median age of 51). Across the population, 1808 (12%) individuals were assigned to group 1 (most deprived), 8119 (52%) to group 2, and 4708 (30%) to group 3 (least deprived), and 871 (6%) individuals had a missing deprivation score. Risk scores based on models that did not include deprivation status significantly under predicted risk in the most deprived (6.43% observed versus 4.63% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.001] and 6.69% observed versus 4.66% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P<0.001]). Both risk scores also significantly overpredicted the risk in the least deprived group (3.97% observed versus 4.72% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.007] and 4.22% observed versus 4.85% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P=0.028]). In contrast, no significant difference was demonstrated in the observed versus predicted risk when using the ASSIGN risk score, which included socioeconomic deprivation status in the risk model.ConclusionsSocioeconomic status is a largely unrecognized risk factor in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Risk scores that exclude socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate under- and overestimate the risk in the most and least deprived individuals, respectively. This study highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic deprivation status in risk estimation systems to ultimately reduce inequalities in health care provision for cardiovascular disease.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death globally. Community pharmacist intervention studies have demonstrated clinical effectiveness for improving several leading individual CVD risk factors. Primary prevention strategies increasingly emphasise the need for consideration of overall cardiovascular risk and concurrent management of multiple risk factors. It is therefore important to demonstrate the feasibility of multiple risk factor management by community pharmacists to ensure continued currency of their role.Methods/designThis study will be a longitudinal pre- and post-test pilot study with a single cohort of up to 100 patients in ten pharmacies. Patients aged 50-74 years with no history of heart disease or diabetes, and taking antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medicines, will be approached for participation. Assessment of cardiovascular risk, medicines use and health behaviours will be undertaken by a research assistant at baseline and following the intervention (6 months). Validated interview scales will be used where available. Baseline data will be used by accredited medicines management pharmacists to generate a report for the treating community pharmacist. This report will highlight individual patients' overall CVD risk and individual risk factors, as well as identifying modifiable health behaviours for risk improvement and suggesting treatment and behavioural goals. The treating community pharmacist will use this information to finalise and implement a treatment plan in conjunction with the patient and their doctor. Community pharmacists will facilitate patient improvements in lifestyle, medicines adherence, and medicines management over the course of five counselling sessions with monthly intervals. The primary outcome will be the change to average overall cardiovascular risk, assessed using the Framingham risk equation.DiscussionThis study will assess the feasibility of implementing holistic primary CVD prevention programs into community pharmacy, one of the most accessible health services in most developed countries.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number: ACTRN12609000677202.

Dataset Information

Modified treatment approach using cardiovascular disease risk calculator for primary prevention.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Modified treatment approach using cardiovascular disease risk calculator for primary prevention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets