Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27143546›Full record

ReviewCirculation2016

Recent Update to the US Cholesterol Treatment Guidelines: A Comparison With International Guidelines.

Matthew Nayor, Ramachandran S Vasan

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Circulation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Should mutant TP53 be targeted for cancer therapy?Cell death and differentiation · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Matthew NayorFrom Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, MA (M.N., R.S.V.); Brigham and Women's Hospital, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Boston, MA (M.N.); Sections of Preventive Medicine and Cardiology, Boston University School of Medicine, MA (R.S.V.); and Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, MA (R.S.V.). mnayor@partners.org.
Ramachandran S VasanFrom Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, MA (M.N., R.S.V.); Brigham and Women's Hospital, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Boston, MA (M.N.); Sections of Preventive Medicine and Cardiology, Boston University School of Medicine, MA (R.S.V.); and Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, MA (R.S.V.).

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCHT32HL007604 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI MARK W FEINBERG · 1985 to 2026
$19.0M
Harvard Regional Clinical Center of the NHLBI Heart Failure NetworkU10HL110337 · NHLBI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GIVERTZ, MICHAEL M, LEWIS, GREGORY DYER · 2012 to 2018
$3.5M
THE FRAMINGHAM HEART STUDY-N01HC25195-268025195-268025195N01HC025195 · HC · TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY · PI WOLF, PHILIP A · 2002 to 2006
–
NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201500001CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201500001INHLBI NIH HHS N01 HC025195NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007604NHLBI NIH HHS U10 HL110337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol guideline advocated several changes from the previous Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Assuming full implementation, the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline would identify ≈13 million Americans as newly eligible for consideration of statin therapy. Three features of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline primarily responsible for these differences are the specific risk assessment tool endorsed, the risk threshold considered sufficient to warrant primary prevention statin therapy, and the decision not to include cholesterol treatment targets. There is no consensus among international guidelines on the optimal approach to these 3 components. The 2013 ACC/AHA guideline recommends assessing absolute risk with the Pooled Cohort equations, which were developed to improve on previous risk assessment models by including stroke as an outcome and by broadening racial and geographic diversity. Each of the leading international guidelines recommends a different equation for absolute risk assessment. The 2013 ACC/AHA guideline advises consideration of statin therapy for an estimated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease of ≥7.5%, which is lower than the thresholds recommended by other leading international guidelines. Lastly, the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline does not endorse a treat-to-target strategy but instead specifies the appropriate intensity of statin for each risk category. This approach is shared by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines but differs from other international guidelines. In this review, we summarize the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline recommendations and compare them with recommendations from Adult Treatment Panel III and other leading international guidelines.

Indexed as

American Heart AssociationInternationalityCardiologyCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterolHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk FactorsStrokeTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesCholesterolHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitorscardiovascular diseasescholesterolguideline [publication type]prevention and control

Identifiers

PMID27143546
PMCPMC4857879

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.