The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1454-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This research was presented at the annual meetings of the American Geriatrics Society (Chicago, April 30, 2009) and the Society of General Internal Medicine (Miami, May 14, 2009) and at the Bay Area Clinical Research Symposium (San Francisco, October 3, 2008)
Dr. Polansky's contribution to this article is made in his personal capacity, not as a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services employee. The opinions (or conclusions) expressed are those of Dr. Polansky and not necessarily of CMS or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.
We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20–79 from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10–20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative.
Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having “moderate” risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having “moderately high” (10–20%) risk, and 7% as having “high” (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25–46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk.
Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.
S1 (DOC 63.5 KB)11606_2010_1454_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Jama. 2001;285:2486-97.
Epocrates Rx STAT Cholesterol application on Palm Pilot portable digital assistant platform. Available at: www.epocrates.com. Accessed June 17, 2010.
MayoClinic.com Heart Disease Risk Calculator. Available at: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease-risk/HB00047. Accessed June 15, 2010
Persell SD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baker DW. Implications of changing national cholesterol education program goals for the treatment and control of hypercholesterolemia. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:171–6. PubMed
National Center for Health Statistics. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Analytic and Reporting Guidelines (update version September 2006). Hyattsville, MD. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/analytical_guidelines.htm. Accessed June 15, 2010.
Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal. 2004;4:227–241.
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Framingham Heart Study: Hard Coronary Heart Disease: 10-year risk. Available at: http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/risk/hrdcoronary.html. Accessed June 15, 2010
Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47. PubMed
Janes H, Pepe MS, Gu W. Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:751–60. PubMed
Cook NR, Ridker PM. Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:795–802. PubMed
Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ;340:c2197.
Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease? BMJ. 1994;308:367–72. PubMed
Hayward RA, Hofer TP, Vijan S. Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:520–30. PubMed
Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Tice JA, Pletcher MJ. Aspirin, statins, or both drugs for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease events in men: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:326–36. PubMed
Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–160. iii-iv.
Pletcher MJ, Lazar L, Bibbins-Domingo K, et al. Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:243–54. PubMed
National Cholesterol Education Program. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III): Final Report. National Institutes of Health Publication No. 02-5215; 2002.
- Coronary Risk Assessment by Point-Based vs. Equation-Based Framingham Models: Significant Implications for Clinical Care
BA William J. Gordon
MD, MPH Jesse M. Polansky
PhD W. John Boscardin
MS Kathy Z. Fung
MD Michael A. Steinman
Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Inneren Medizin
Mail Icon II