Should statin therapy be allocated on the basis of global risk or on the basis of randomized trial evidence?
Current clinical guidelines recommend the use of a global risk assessment tool, such as those pioneered by the Framingham Heart Study, to determine eligibility for statin therapy in patients with absolute risk levels greater than a certain threshold. In support of this approach, several randomized trials have reported that patients with high absolute risk clearly benefit from statin therapy. Therefore, the guideline recommendations would seem intuitive and effective, albeit on the core assumption that the mortality and morbidity benefits associated with statin therapy would be greatest in those with high predicted absolute risk. However, if this assumption is incorrect, using predicted absolute risk to guide statin therapy could easily result in underuse in some groups and overuse in others. Herein, the authors question the utility of global risk assessment strategies based on the Framingham risk score for guiding statin therapy in light of current data that have become available from more recent and robust prospective randomized clinical trials since the publication of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Moreover, the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines do not support treatment of some patients who may benefit from statin therapy. In conclusion, the authors propose an alternative approach for incorporating more recent randomized trial data into future statin allocation algorithms and treatment guidelines.
DeMazumder
Deeptankar
D
Hasan
Rani K
RK
Blumenthal
Roger S
RS
Michos
Erin D
ED
Jones
Steven
S
D000465:Algorithms; D006801:Humans; D019161:Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006937:Hypercholesterolemia / Q000188:drug therapy*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D018570:Risk Assessment
D019161:Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):238-48
16034009
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 23;55(12):1169-1177
20298922
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2248-61
17984166
Lancet. 2005 Oct 8;366(9493):1267-78
16214597
JAMA. 2007 Feb 14;297(6):641-3
17299201
Circulation. 2008 Nov 25;118(22):2243-51, 4p following 2251
18997194
JAMA. 2005 Jul 20;294(3):326-33
16030277
Circulation. 2004 Jun 29;109(25 Suppl 1):IV6-19
15226246
Lancet. 2006 Sep 30;368(9542):1155-63
17011942
JAMA. 2007 Feb 14;297(6):611-9
17299196
Eur Heart J. 2010 Apr;31(7):777-83
20185554
Am J Cardiol. 2004 Jul 1;94(1):20-4
15219502
Circulation. 2009 Jan 27;119(3):382-9
19139385
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1395-407
19332456
Circulation. 2004 Jul 13;110(2):227-39
15249516
Circulation. 2006 Feb 14;113(6):791-8
16461820
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Apr 15;51(15):1512-24
18402913
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 May 7;41(9):1475-9
12742284
Circulation. 2010 Mar 9;121(9):1069-77
20176986
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 May 19;43(10):1791-6
15145101
Ann Hum Genet. 2003 Mar;67(Pt 2):97-106
12675686
N Engl J Med. 2008 Nov 20;359(21):2195-207
18997196
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 7;352(14):1425-35
15755765
Circulation. 2007 Aug 7;116(6):619-26
17646582
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Feb 15;99(4):535-40
17293199
Lancet. 2002 Jul 6;360(9326):7-22
12114036
Lancet. 2003 Apr 5;361(9364):1149-58
12686036
Lancet. 2008 Oct 4;372(9645):1231-9
18757089
Circulation. 2010 Jan 19;121(2):306-14
20048204
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2009;5:1033-42
20057896
N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr 8;350(15):1495-504
15007110
Am J Cardiol. 2001 Jan 15;87(2):129-35
11152826