Dataset Information

Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: estimates from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Aspirin for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is only recommended for individuals at high risk for CHD although the majority of CHD events occur in individuals who are at low to intermediate risk. METHODS AND RESULTS:To estimate the potential of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring to guide aspirin use for primary prevention of CHD, we studied 4229 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis who were not on aspirin at baseline and were free of diabetes mellitus. Using data from median 7.6-year follow-up, 5-year number-needed-to-treat estimations were calculated by applying an 18% relative CHD reduction to the observed event rates. This was contrasted to 5-year number-needed-to-harm estimations based on the risk of major bleeding reported in an aspirin meta-analysis. Results were stratified by a 10% 10-year CHD Framingham Risk Score (FRS). Individuals with CAC?100 had an estimated net benefit with aspirin regardless of their traditional risk status (estimated 5-year number needed to treat of 173 for individuals <10% FRS and 92 for individuals ?10% FRS, estimated 5-year number needed to harm of 442 for a major bleed). Conversely, individuals with zero CAC had unfavorable estimations (estimated 5-year number needed to treat of 2036 for individuals <10% FRS and 808 for individuals ?10% FRS, estimated 5-year number needed to harm of 442 for a major bleed). Sex-specific and age-stratified analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS:For the primary prevention of CHD, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis participants with CAC?100 had favorable risk/benefit estimations for aspirin use while participants with zero CAC were estimated to receive net harm from aspirin.

SUBMITTER: Miedema MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4412344 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: estimates from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

Miedema Michael D MD Duprez Daniel A DA Misialek Jeffrey R JR Blaha Michael J MJ Nasir Khurram K Silverman Michael G MG Blankstein Ron R Budoff Matthew J MJ Greenland Philip P Folsom Aaron R AR

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 20140506 3

<h4>Background</h4>Aspirin for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is only recommended for individuals at high risk for CHD although the majority of CHD events occur in individuals who are at low to intermediate risk.<h4>Methods and results</h4>To estimate the potential of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring to guide aspirin use for primary prevention of CHD, we studied 4229 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis who were not on aspirin at baseline and w ...[more]

PMID: 24803472

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Primary Prevention Guidelines recommended considering low-dose aspirin therapy only among adults 40 to 70 years of age who are at higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but not at high risk of bleeding. However, it remains unclear how these patients are best identified. The present study aimed to assess the value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) for guiding aspirin allocation for primary prevention by using 2019 aspirin meta-analysis data on cardiovascular disease relative risk reduction and bleeding risk.MethodsThe study included 6470 participants from the MESA Study (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). ASCVD risk was estimated using the pooled cohort equations, and 3 strata were defined: <5%, 5% to 20%, and >20%. All participants underwent CAC scoring at baseline, and CAC scores were stratified as =0, 1 to 99, ≥100, and ≥400. A 12% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events was used for the 5-year number needed to treat (NNT5) calculations, and a 42% relative risk increase in major bleeding events was used for the 5-year number needed to harm (NNH5) estimations.ResultsOnly 5% of MESA participants would qualify for aspirin consideration for primary prevention according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines and using >20% estimated ASCVD risk to define higher risk. Benefit/harm calculations were restricted to aspirin-naive participants <70 years of age not at high risk of bleeding (n=3540). The overall NNT5 with aspirin to prevent 1 cardiovascular disease event was 476 and the NNH5 was 355. The NNT5 was also greater than or similar to the NNH5 among estimated ASCVD risk strata. Conversely, CAC≥100 and CAC≥400 identified subgroups in which NNT5 was lower than NNH5. This was true both overall (for CAC≥100, NNT5=140 versus NNH5=518) and within ASCVD risk strata. Also, CAC=0 identified subgroups in which the NNT5 was much higher than the NNH5 (overall, NNT5=1190 versus NNH5=567).ConclusionsCAC may be superior to the pooled cohort equations to inform the allocation of aspirin in primary prevention. Implementation of current 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommendations together with the use of CAC for further risk assessment may result in a more personalized, safer allocation of aspirin in primary prevention. Confirmation of these findings in experimental settings is needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) showed that the addition of coronary artery calcium (CAC) to traditional risk factors improves risk classification, particularly in intermediate risk asymptomatic patients with LDL cholesterol levels <160 mg/dL. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating CAC into treatment decision rules has yet to be clearly delineated.ObjectiveTo model the cost-effectiveness of CAC for cardiovascular risk stratification in asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients not taking a statin. Treatment based on CAC was compared to (1) treatment of all intermediate-risk patients, and (2) treatment on the basis of United States guidelines.MethodsWe developed a Markov model of first coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. We modeled statin treatment in intermediate risk patients with CAC≥1 and CAC≥100, with different intensities of statins based on the CAC score. We compared these CAC-based treatment strategies to a "treat all" strategy and to treatment according to the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines. Clinical and economic outcomes were modeled over both five- and ten-year time horizons. Outcomes consisted of CHD and CVD events and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses considered the effect of higher event rates, different CAC and statin costs, indirect costs, and re-scanning patients with incidentalomas.ResultsWe project that it is both cost-saving and more effective to scan intermediate-risk patients for CAC and to treat those with CAC≥1, compared to treatment based on established risk-assessment guidelines. Treating patients with CAC≥100 is also preferred to existing guidelines when we account for statin side effects and the disutility of statin use.ConclusionCompared to the alternatives we assessed, CAC testing is both effective and cost saving as a risk-stratification tool, particularly if there are adverse effects of long-term statin use. CAC may enable providers to better tailor preventive therapy to patients' risks of CVD.

Project description:ImportanceThe 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol recommends the use of risk-enhancing factor assessment and the selective use of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring to guide the allocation of statin therapy among individuals with an intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ObjectiveTo examine the association between risk-enhancing factors and incident ASCVD by CAC burden among those at intermediate risk of ASCVD.Design, setting, and participantsThe Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis is a multicenter population-based prospective cross-sectional study conducted in the US. Baseline data for the present study were collected between July 15, 2000, and July 14, 2002, and follow-up for incident ASCVD events was ascertained through August 20, 2015. Participants were aged 45 to 75 years with no clinical ASCVD or diabetes at baseline, were at intermediate risk of ASCVD (≥7.5% to <20.0%), and had a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 70 to 189 mg/dL.ExposuresFamily history of premature ASCVD, premature menopause, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney disease, lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, and low ankle-brachial index.Main outcomes and measuresIncident ASCVD over a median follow-up of 12.0 years.ResultsA total of 1688 participants (mean [SD] age, 65 [6] years; 976 men [57.8%]). Of those, 648 individuals (38.4%) were White, 562 (33.3%) were Black, 305 (18.1%) were Hispanic, and 173 (10.2%) were Chinese American. A total of 722 participants (42.8%) had a CAC score of 0. Among those with 1 to 2 risk-enhancing factors vs those with 3 or more risk-enhancing factors, the prevalence of a CAC score of 0 was 45.7% vs 40.3%, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 12.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 11.5-12.6 years), the unadjusted incidence rate of ASCVD among those with a CAC score of 0 was less than 7.5 events per 1000 person-years for all individual risk-enhancing factors (with the exception of ankle-brachial index, for which the incidence rate was 10.4 events per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 1.5-73.5]) and combinations of risk-enhancing factors, including participants with 3 or more risk-enhancing factors. Although the individual and composite addition of risk-enhancing factors to the traditional risk factors was associated with improvement in the area under the receiver operating curve, the use of CAC scoring was associated with the greatest improvement in the C statistic (0.633 vs 0.678) for ASCVD events. For incident ASCVD, the net reclassification improvement for CAC was 0.067.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, among participants with CAC scores of 0, the presence of risk-enhancing factors was generally not associated with an overall ASCVD risk that was higher than the recommended treatment threshold for the initiation of statin therapy. The use of CAC scoring was associated with significant improvements in the reclassification and discrimination of incident ASCVD. The results of this study support the utility of CAC scoring as an adjunct to risk-enhancing factor assessment to more accurately classify individuals with an intermediate risk of ASCVD who might benefit from statin therapy.

Project description:This study sought to determine if coronary artery calcium (CAC) is associated with incident noncardiovascular disease.CAC is considered a measure of vascular aging, associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The relationship with noncardiovascular disease is not well defined.A total of 6,814 participants from 6 MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) field centers were followed for a median of 10.2 years. Modified Cox proportional hazards ratios accounting for the competing risk of fatal coronary heart disease were calculated for new diagnoses of cancer, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, hip fracture, and dementia. Analyses were adjusted for age; sex; race; socioeconomic status; health insurance status; body mass index; physical activity; diet; tobacco use; number of medications used; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; antihypertensive, aspirin, and cholesterol medication; and diabetes. The outcome was first incident noncardiovascular disease diagnosis.Compared with those with CAC = 0, those with CAC >400 had an increased hazard of cancer (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18 to 1.99), CKD (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.21 to 2.39), pneumonia (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.37 to 2.82), COPD (HR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.60 to 4.57), and hip fracture (HR: 4.29; 95% CI: 1.47 to 12.50). CAC >400 was not associated with dementia or deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. Those with CAC = 0 had decreased risk of cancer (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.92), CKD (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.98), COPD (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.91), and hip fracture (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.70) compared to those with CAC >0. CAC = 0 was not associated with less pneumonia, dementia, or deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. The results were attenuated, but remained significant, after removing participants developing interim nonfatal coronary heart disease.Participants with elevated CAC were at increased risk of cancer, CKD, COPD, and hip fractures. Those with CAC = 0 are less likely to develop common age-related comorbid conditions, and represent a unique population of "healthy agers."

Dataset Information

Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: estimates from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

Publications

Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: estimates from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets