ArticleTherapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease2016
Comparative impact of implementing the 2013 or 2014 cholesterol guideline on vascular events in a quality improvement network.
Article in Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Quality and Care Model Committee for a clinically integrated network requested a comparative analysis on the projected cardiovascular benefits of implementing either the 2013 and 2014 cholesterol guideline in a South Carolina patient population. A secondary request was to assess the relative risk of the two guidelines based on the literature.
methodsElectronic health data were obtained on 1,580,860 adults aged 21-80 years who had had one or more visits from January 2013 to June 2015; 566,688 had data to calculate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD10) risk. Adults with end-stage renal disease (n = 7852), congestive heart failure (n = 19,818), alcohol or drug abuse (n = 68,547), or currently on statins (n = 154,964) were excluded leaving 315,508 for analysis. Estimated reduction in ASCVD10 assumed that: (a) moderate-intensity statins lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 35% and high-intensity statins by 50%; (b) ASCVD events declined 22% for each 1 mmol/l fall in LDL-C.
resultsAmong the 315,508 adults in the analysis, 131,289 (41.6%) were eligible for statins according to the 2013 guideline and 137,375 (43.5%) to the 2014 guideline. The 2013 and 2014 guidelines were estimated to prevent 6780 and 5915 ASCVD events over 10 years with: (a) relative risk reductions of 29.0% and 21.8%; (b) absolute risk reductions of 5.2% and 4.3%; (c) number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 19 and 23, respectively. The greater projected cardiovascular protection with the 2013 guideline was largely related to greater use of high-dose statins, which carry a greater risk for adverse events. The literature indicates that the NNT for benefit with high-intensity versus moderate-intensity statins is 31 in high-risk patients with a number needed-to-harm of 47.
conclusionsThe 2013 guideline is projected to prevent more clinical ASCVD events and with lower NNTs than the 2014 guideline, yet both have substantial benefit. The 2013 guideline is also expected to generate more adverse events, but the risk-benefit profile appears favor .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.