ArticleClinical cardiology2017
Guideline-based statin/lipid-lowering therapy eligibility for primary prevention and accuracy of coronary artery calcium and clinical cardiovascular events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of integrating screening and treatment of selected non-communicable diseases into HIV/AIDS treatment in Uganda.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2020Article
- Guideline-based statin/lipid-lowering therapy eligibility for primary prevention and accuracy of coronary artery calcium and clinical cardiovascular events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).Clinical cardiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith multiple cholesterol guidelines, we evaluated the accuracy of recommended statin therapy on identifying coronary artery calcium (CAC) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events by 2004 NCEP/ ATP III, 2016 ESC/EAS, and 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. HYPOTHESIS: ACC/AHA guidelines are more accurate in identifying persons at risk for CVD.
methods5002/6814 participants age <75 years and free of CVD were included. CAC categories (>0, ≥100, and ≥300) and 10 years of CVD outcomes were considered. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated. Mean age was 59 years; 47% of subjects were males.
results1297 (26%), 1381 (28%), and 2538 (51%) had class I indications for statin/LLT by the NCEP ATP III, ESC/EAS, and AHA/ACC guidelines, respectively. SN, SP, NPV, and PPV for CAC ≥300 were: NCEP ATP III (41.1%, 75.5%, 93.3% and 13.4%), ESC/EAS (54.1%, 74.8%, 94.6% and16.6%), and ACC/AHA (87.2%, 52.6%, 97.8% and 14.5%). SN, SP, PPV, and NPV for corresponding CVD outcomes were: NCEP ATP III (45.8%, 75.1%, 96.3%, and 8.9%), ESC/EAS (50.5%, 72.9%, 98.7%, and 3.6%), and AHA/ACC (79.6%, 50.7%, 98%, and 7.7%). ESC/EAS had significantly higher positive LR 2.15 (95% CI, 1.95 - 2.38) and ACC/AHA had significantly lower negative LR [0.24, (95% CI 0.19 - 0.31)] for corresponding CVD.
conclusionsDespite the increased in SN of statin eligibility by the ACC/AHA, it has similar NPV and PPV for CAC/future CVD events. The ACC/AHA class I indications for statin may be a superior screening tool for subclinical and clinical CVD.
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.