ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020
Impact of lowering the risk threshold for statin treatment on statin prescribing: a descriptive study in English primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. 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.
- Trends and inequalities in statin use for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease between 2009 and 2021 in England: a series of cross-sectional and cohort studies.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Validation of a deep-learning-based retinal biomarker (Reti-CVD) in the prediction of cardiovascular disease: data from UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2014, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) changed the recommended threshold for initiating statins from a 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) of 20% to 10% (Clinical Guideline 181), making 4.5 million extra people eligible for treatment.
aimTo evaluate the impact of this guideline change on statin prescribing behaviour. DESIGN AND
settingA descriptive study using data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a primary care database in England.
methodPeople aged 25-84 years being initiated on statins for the primary prevention of CVD were identified. CVD risk predictions were calculated for every person using data in their medical record (calculated risks), and were extracted directly from their medical record if a QRISK score was recorded (coded risks). The 10-year CVD risks of people initiated on statins in each calendar year were compared.
resultsThe average 'calculated risk' of all people being initiated on statins was 20.65% in the year before the guideline change, and 20.27% after. When considering only the 'coded risks', the average risk was 21.85% before the guideline change, and 18.65% after. The proportion of people initiating statins that had a coded risk score in their medical record increased significantly from 2010-2017.
conclusionCurrently available evidence, which only considers people with coded risk scores in their medical record, indicates the guideline change had a large impact on statin prescribing. However, that analysis likely suffers from selection bias. This new evidence indicates only a modest impact of the guideline change. Further qualitative research about the lack of response to the guideline change is needed.
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.