At what level of coronary heart disease risk should a statin be prescribed?

被引:10
作者
Gaw, A [1 ]
Packard, CJ [1 ]
机构
[1] N Glasgow Univ Hosp Trust, Glasgow Royal Infirm, Dept Pathol Biochem, Glasgow G31 2ER, Lanark, Scotland
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00041433-200008000-00004
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Statin therapy has been conclusively shown to offer patients clinical benefit, virtually irrespective of their baseline risk status. However, the absolute risk reductions observed in different clinical trials, which have recruited patients across a spectrum of lipid levels and vascular disease states, show that baseline global risk determines the absolute benefit gained and in turn will specify the number of patients needed to be treated in order to realize this benefit. Global risk assessment is therefore central to the clinically meaningful use of statin therapy, and a strong case is now argued in the literature for a high-risk primary prevention strategy that goes hand in hand with standard secondary prevention. The routine use of Framingham-based risk assessment tools is advocated because these are the most widely evaluated and have been repeatedly shown to predict the risk of coronary heart disease accurately in western populations, The risk threshold in primary prevention that should determine pharmacological intervention is the subject of controversy. The currently used annual risk figure of 3% would clearly capture all very high-risk individuals but would also deny treatment to many individuals who will subsequently die from their first coronary event. Although a 1.5% annual risk threshold is economically untenable in the present UK health system, a level of 2% is, we believe, both achievable and affordable. Curr Opin Lipidol 11:363-367. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
引用
收藏
页码:363 / 367
页数:5
相关论文
共 34 条
[11]   Indications for cholesterol-lowering medication: comparison of risk-assessment methods [J].
Durrington, PN ;
Prais, H ;
Bhatnagar, D ;
France, M ;
Crowley, V ;
Khan, J ;
Morgan, J .
LANCET, 1999, 353 (9149) :278-281
[12]   The relative influence of secondary versus primary prevention using the national cholesterol education program adult treatment panel II guidelines [J].
Goldman, L ;
Coxson, P ;
Hunink, MGM ;
Goldman, PA ;
Tosteson, ANA ;
Mittleman, M ;
Williams, L ;
Weinstein, MC .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 1999, 34 (03) :768-776
[13]  
Gotto Antonio M., 1999, American Journal of Medicine, V107, p36S
[14]   Primary prevention of coronary heart disease - Integrating risk assessment with intervention [J].
Grundy, SM .
CIRCULATION, 1999, 100 (09) :988-998
[15]   A simple computer program for guiding management of cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing [J].
Hingorani, AD ;
Vallance, P .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 318 (7176) :101-105
[16]   Risk assessment in primary prevention of coronary heart disease: randomised comparison of three scoring methods [J].
Isles, CG ;
Ritchie, LD ;
Murchie, P ;
Norrie, J .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7236) :690-691
[17]   Updated New Zealand cardiovascular disease risk-benefit prediction guide [J].
Jackson, R .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7236) :709-710
[18]  
Kessler KM, 1999, AM J CARDIOL, V83, P475
[19]  
Krut LH, 1999, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V281, P414, DOI 10.1001/jama.281.5.414
[20]   Follow-up on primary prevention trials [J].
Marais, AD .
CURRENT OPINION IN LIPIDOLOGY, 1998, 9 (06) :551-556