Dataset Information

A Long-term Benefit Approach vs Standard Risk-Based Approaches for Statin Eligibility in Primary Prevention.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

A 10-year benefit-based approach to statin therapy in primary prevention includes younger individuals with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and prevents more cardiovascular events than a risk-based approach. However, a 10-year treatment duration likely underestimates the expected benefits of statins.

Objective

To model the impact of a 30-year benefit approach to select individuals for statin therapy.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) data set included samples of the US population from the 2009-2010, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014 data collection cycles. Individuals between 40 to 60 years old who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or LDL-C levels greater than 190 mg/dL and who were not taking statins were included. Data analysis took place from November 2017 to August 2018.

Exposures

We calculated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and 10-year and 30-year absolute risk reduction (10-year ARR and 30-year ARR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for each individual.

Main outcomes and measures

Number of individuals meeting eligibility for statins based on 10-year (atherosclerotic) cardiovascular disease risk, 10-year ARR, or 30-year ARR.

Results

A total of 1688 individuals were included, representing 56.6 million US individuals. Statin eligibility based on 7.5% CVR10 was 9.5%; based on 2.3% 10-year ARR, 13.0%, and based on 15% 30-year ARR, 17.5%. The 10-year risk, 10-year benefit, and 30-year benefit approaches all led to similar acceptable mean absolute risk reductions at 30 years, with the benefit-based approaches better able to avoid treatment of individuals with low expected benefit. Individuals who met statin eligibility based solely on the 30-year ARR threshold of 15% or greater were younger (mean age, 50 [95% CI, 48-52] years) and more likely to be women (43% [95% CI, 26%-59%]) than those recommended with a 10-year ARR threshold of 2.3% or greater (mean age, 56 [95% CI, 54-57] years; 22% [95% CI, 10%-34%] women). This group also had lower 10-year risk (mean risk, 4.7% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.1%]) and higher LDL-C levels (mean level, 149 mg/dL [95% CI, 142-155 mg/dL]) than those recommended with a 10-year ARR threshold of 2.3% or greater (mean risk, 9.3% [95% CI, 8.3%-10.2%]; mean LDL-C levels, 110 [103-118] mg/dL). Preventable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in 10 and 30 years were highest using the 30-year benefit approach (296?000 at 10 years and 2.03 million at 30 years) and lowest based on 10-year risk (204?000 at 10 years and 1.18 million at 30 years).

Conclusions and relevance

A long-term benefit approach to statin eligibility identifies nearly 1 in 6 individuals as having a high degree of expected long-term benefit of statins, with a number needed to treat of less than 7. This approach identifies younger individuals with higher LDL-C levels who would not be currently recommended for treatment and may provide a more optimal approach for determining statin eligibility in primary prevention.

SUBMITTER: Thanassoulis G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583050 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Long-term Benefit Approach vs Standard Risk-Based Approaches for Statin Eligibility in Primary Prevention.

Thanassoulis George G Sniderman Allan D AD Pencina Michael J MJ

JAMA cardiology 20181101 11

<h4>Importance</h4>A 10-year benefit-based approach to statin therapy in primary prevention includes younger individuals with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and prevents more cardiovascular events than a risk-based approach. However, a 10-year treatment duration likely underestimates the expected benefits of statins.<h4>Objective</h4>To model the impact of a 30-year benefit approach to select individuals for statin therapy.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cross- ...[more]

PMID: 30422172

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere are important differences among guideline recommendations for using statin therapy in primary prevention. New recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) emphasize therapy based on the presence of 1 or more cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and a 10-year global CVD risk of 10% or greater.ObjectiveTo determine the difference in eligibility for primary prevention statin treatment among US adults, assuming full application of USPSTF recommendations compared with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines.Design, setting, and participantsNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2009-2014) were used to assess statin eligibility under the 2016 USPSTF recommendations vs the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines among a nationally representative sample of 3416 US adults aged 40 to 75 years with fasting lipid data and triglyceride levels of 400 mg/dL or less, without prior CVD.ExposuresThe 2016 USPSTF recommendations vs 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresEligibility for primary prevention statin therapy.ResultsAmong the US primary prevention population represented by 3416 individuals in NHANES, the median weighted age was 53 years (interquartile range, 46-61), and 53% (95% CI, 52%-55%) were women. Along with the 21.5% (95% CI, 19.3%-23.7%) of patients who reported currently taking lipid-lowering medication, full implementation of the USPSTF recommendations would be associated with initiation of statin therapy in an additional 15.8% (95% CI, 14.0%-17.5%) of patients, compared with an additional 24.3% (95% CI, 22.3%-26.3%) of patients who would be recommended for statin initiation under full implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. Among the 8.9% of individuals in the primary prevention population who would be recommended for statins by ACC/AHA guidelines but not by USPSTF recommendations, 55% would be adults aged 40 to 59 years with a mean 30-year cardiovascular risk greater than 30%, and 28% would have diabetes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this sample of US adults from 2009-2014, adherence to the 2016 USPSTF recommendations for statin therapy, compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, could lead to a lower number of individuals recommended for primary prevention statin therapy, including many younger adults with high mean long-term CVD risk.

Project description:ImportanceFor primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on statin use (hereafter European-ESC) recommend a new risk model (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 [European-SCORE2]) as well as new age-specific treatment thresholds (≥7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk if aged 40-49 years and ≥10% if aged 50-69 years).ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of the 2021 European-ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (hereafter US-ACC/AHA), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK-NICE), and 2019 ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines in apparently healthy individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based contemporary cohort study included 66 909 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years and were free of ASCVD, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and statin use at baseline in 2003 to 2015. Mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to April 2022.ExposuresStatin treatment according to guideline criteria.Main outcomes and measuresCalibration of risk calculators, statin eligibility, sensitivity, and specificity for ASCVD events according to guideline criteria.ResultsDuring follow-up, a range of 2962 to 4277 nonfatal and fatal ASCVD events was observed, as defined by the 2021 European-SCORE2, US pooled cohort equations (PCE), and UK-QRISK3 models, and 180 fatal ASCVD events were noted as defined by the 2019 European-SCORE1 model. European-SCORE2 was slightly better calibrated with a predicted/observed ASCVD event ratio of 0.8 vs 1.3 for US-PCE, 1.3 for UK-QRISK3, and 5.8 for European-SCORE1. For primary prevention class I recommendations in individuals aged 40 to 69 years, 2862 of 66 909 (4%) qualified for statins according to the 2021 European-ESC guidelines compared with 23 029 (34%) with US-ACC/AHA, 17 659 (26%) with UK-NICE, and 13 496 (20%) with 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines, with associated sensitivities for detecting future European-SCORE2-defined ASCVD events of 12%, 60%, 51%, and 36%, respectively. The sensitivity of the European-ESC guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds, resulting in smaller losses in specificity. To obtain similar clinical performance with the 2021 European-ESC guidelines as in the other guidelines, the threshold with European-SCORE2 should be reduced to 5% overall to match US-ACC/AHA, to 6% to match UK-NICE, and to 7% to match 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceDespite an improved European-SCORE2 prediction model, the new treatment thresholds in the 2021 European-ESC guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for primary prevention with statins in low-risk European countries. Using lower treatment thresholds can improve overall guideline performance.

Project description:BackgroundBenefit-targeted statin prescribing may be superior to risk-targeted statin prescribing (the current standard), but the impact and efficiency of this approach are unclear.Methods and resultsWe analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) using an open-source model (the Prevention Impact and Efficiency Model) to compare targeting of statin therapy according to expected benefit (benefit-targeted) versus baseline risk (risk-targeted) in terms of projected population-level impact and efficiency. Impact was defined as relative % reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the US population for the given strategy compared to current statin treatment patterns; and efficiency as the number needed to treat over 10 years (NNT10, average and maximum) to prevent each atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event. Benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statin therapy at a treatment threshold of 2.3% expected 10-year absolute risk reduction could produce a 5.7% impact (95% confidence interval, 4.8-6.7). This is approximately equivalent to the potential impact of risk-targeted therapy at a treatment threshold of 5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (5.6% impact [4.7-6.6]). Whereas the estimated maximum NNT10 is much improved for benefit-targeted versus risk-targeted therapy at these equivalent-impact thresholds (43.5 vs 180), the average NNT10 is nearly equivalent (24.2 vs 24.6). Reaching 10% impact (half the Healthy People 2020 impact objective, loosely defined) is theoretically possible with benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statins of persons with expected absolute risk reduction >2.3% if we expand age eligibility and account for treatment of all persons with diabetes mellitus or with low-density lipoprotein >190 mg/dL (impact=12.4%; average NNT10=23.0).ConclusionsBenefit-based targeting of statin therapy provides modest gains in efficiency over risk-based prescribing and could theoretically help attain approximately half of the Healthy People 2020 impact goal with reasonable efficiency.

Project description:Genetic variants have been associated with the risk of coronary heart disease. In this study, we tested whether or not a composite of these variants could ascertain the risk of both incident and recurrent coronary heart disease events and identify those individuals who derive greater clinical benefit from statin therapy.A community-based cohort study (the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study) and four randomised controlled trials of both primary prevention (JUPITER and ASCOT) and secondary prevention (CARE and PROVE IT-TIMI 22) with statin therapy, comprising a total of 48,421 individuals and 3477 events, were included in these analyses. We studied the association of a genetic risk score based on 27 genetic variants with incident or recurrent coronary heart disease, adjusting for traditional clinical risk factors. We then investigated the relative and absolute risk reductions in coronary heart disease events with statin therapy stratified by genetic risk. We combined data from the different studies using a meta-analysis.When individuals were divided into low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2-4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk categories, a significant gradient in risk for incident or recurrent coronary heart disease was shown. Compared with the low genetic risk category, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for coronary heart disease for the intermediate genetic risk category was 1·34 (95% CI 1·22-1·47, p<0·0001) and that for the high genetic risk category was 1·72 (1·55-1·92, p<0·0001). In terms of the benefit of statin therapy in the four randomised trials, we noted a significant gradient (p=0·0277) of increasing relative risk reductions across the low (13%), intermediate (29%), and high (48%) genetic risk categories. Similarly, we noted greater absolute risk reductions in those individuals in higher genetic risk categories (p=0·0101), resulting in a roughly threefold decrease in the number needed to treat to prevent one coronary heart disease event in the primary prevention trials. Specifically, in the primary prevention trials, the number needed to treat to prevent one such event in 10 years was 66 in people at low genetic risk, 42 in those at intermediate genetic risk, and 25 in those at high genetic risk in JUPITER, and 57, 47, and 20, respectively, in ASCOT.A genetic risk score identified individuals at increased risk for both incident and recurrent coronary heart disease events. People with the highest burden of genetic risk derived the largest relative and absolute clinical benefit from statin therapy.National Institutes of Health.

Project description:ImportanceWhile statin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention has been associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity, the effect on all-cause mortality has been variable. There is little evidence to guide the use of statins for primary prevention in adults 75 years and older.ObjectivesTo examine statin treatment among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older when used for primary prevention in the Lipid-Lowering Trial (LLT) component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT).Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc secondary data analyses were conducted of participants 65 years and older without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; 2867 ambulatory adults with hypertension and without baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were included. The ALLHAT-LLT was conducted from February 1994 to March 2002 at 513 clinical sites.InterventionsPravastatin sodium (40 mg/d) vs usual care (UC).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome in the ALLHAT-LLT was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal coronary heart disease combined (coronary heart disease events).ResultsThere were 1467 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [5.2] years) in the pravastatin group (48.0% [n = 704] female) and 1400 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [5.2] years) in the UC group (50.8% [n = 711] female). The baseline mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 147.7 (19.8) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 147.6 (19.4) mg/dL in the UC group; by year 6, the mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 109.1 (35.4) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 128.8 (27.5) mg/dL in the UC group. At year 6, of the participants assigned to pravastatin, 42 of 253 (16.6%) were not taking any statin; 71.0% in the UC group were not taking any statin. The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the pravastatin group vs the UC group were 1.18 (95% CI, 0.97-1.42; P = .09) for all adults 65 years and older, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85-1.37; P = .55) for adults aged 65 to 74 years, and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.98-1.84; P = .07) for adults 75 years and older. Coronary heart disease event rates were not significantly different among the groups. In multivariable regression, the results remained nonsignificant, and there was no significant interaction between treatment group and age.Conclusions and relevanceNo benefit was found when pravastatin was given for primary prevention to older adults with moderate hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and a nonsignificant direction toward increased all-cause mortality with pravastatin was observed among adults 75 years and older.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

Project description:BackgroundRelative risk reduction with statin therapy has been consistent across nearly all subgroups studied to date. However, in analyses of 2 randomized controlled primary prevention trials (ASCOT [Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm] and JUPITER [Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin]), statin therapy led to a greater relative risk reduction among a subgroup at high genetic risk. Here, we aimed to confirm this observation in a third primary prevention randomized controlled trial. In addition, we assessed whether those at high genetic risk had a greater burden of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis.MethodsWe studied participants from a randomized controlled trial of primary prevention with statin therapy (WOSCOPS [West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study]; n=4910) and 2 observational cohort studies (CARDIA [Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults] and BioImage; n=1154 and 4392, respectively). For each participant, we calculated a polygenic risk score derived from up to 57 common DNA sequence variants previously associated with coronary heart disease. We compared the relative efficacy of statin therapy in those at high genetic risk (top quintile of polygenic risk score) versus all others (WOSCOPS), as well as the association between the polygenic risk score and coronary artery calcification (CARDIA) and carotid artery plaque burden (BioImage).ResultsAmong WOSCOPS trial participants at high genetic risk, statin therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22-60; P<0.001), whereas in all others, the relative risk reduction was 24% (95% CI, 8-37; P=0.004) despite similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering. In a study-level meta-analysis across the WOSCOPS, ASCOT, and JUPITER primary prevention, relative risk reduction in those at high genetic risk was 46% versus 26% in all others (P for heterogeneity=0.05). Across all 3 studies, the absolute risk reduction with statin therapy was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.0-5.1) among those in the high genetic risk group and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6-1.9) in all others. Each 1-SD increase in the polygenic risk score was associated with 1.32-fold (95% CI, 1.04-1.68) greater likelihood of having coronary artery calcification and 9.7% higher (95% CI, 2.2-17.8) burden of carotid plaque.ConclusionsThose at high genetic risk have a greater burden of subclinical atherosclerosis and derive greater relative and absolute benefit from statin therapy to prevent a first coronary heart disease event.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00738725 (BioImage) and NCT00005130 (CARDIA). WOSCOPS was carried out and completed before the requirement for clinical trial registration.

Dataset Information

A Long-term Benefit Approach vs Standard Risk-Based Approaches for Statin Eligibility in Primary Prevention.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

A Long-term Benefit Approach vs Standard Risk-Based Approaches for Statin Eligibility in Primary Prevention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets