Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clin...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Ročník 3; s. CD006887 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
England
14.03.2017
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.
To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports.
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD.
Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.
We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence).
There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | BACKGROUNDThe current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.OBJECTIVESTo assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports.SELECTION CRITERIAWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISThree review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.MAIN RESULTSWe identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThere is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention. The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD. Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention. |
| Author | Karmali, Kunal N Persell, Stephen D Lloyd-Jones, Donald M Berendsen, Mark A Huffman, Mark D Perel, Pablo |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Kunal N surname: Karmali fullname: Karmali, Kunal N organization: Departments of Medicine (Cardiology), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 10th Floor, Chicago, IL, USA, 60611 – sequence: 2 givenname: Stephen D surname: Persell fullname: Persell, Stephen D organization: Department of Medicine-General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University, 750 N Lake Shore Drive, Rubloff Building 10th Floo, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 60611 – sequence: 3 givenname: Pablo surname: Perel fullname: Perel, Pablo organization: Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Room 134b Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT – sequence: 4 givenname: Donald M surname: Lloyd-Jones fullname: Lloyd-Jones, Donald M organization: Departments of Preventive Medicine and Medicine (Cardiology), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 680 N. Lake Shore Drive, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL, USA, 60611 – sequence: 5 givenname: Mark A surname: Berendsen fullname: Berendsen, Mark A organization: Galter Health Sciences Library, Northwestern University, 303 E. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA, 60611 – sequence: 6 givenname: Mark D surname: Huffman fullname: Huffman, Mark D organization: Departments of Preventive Medicine and Medicine (Cardiology), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 680 N. Lake Shore Drive, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL, USA, 60611 |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28290160$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNo1j0tLAzEYRYMo9qF_oWTpZmreybcs9QkFQRTcDZk8NDqd1Emn4L93wLo6i3u53DNDp13uAkILSpaUEHZNhZLUSLNc3xCijNHL3dCIEzQdA6gE8LcJmpXySQgHSs05mjDDgFBFpmj1nMoXLi73qXvHMfd4_xHwrk9b2_-MDIfQ7VPucI7Y2d6nfLDFDa3tsU8l2BIu0Fm0bQmXR87R693ty_qh2jzdP65Xm8pJDqLyjALVToHzXGjrYxxPa1ABlG0ck55TxZV0YCBK5wVrgrXABAfmLHGRzdHV3-6uz99DKPt6m4oLbWu7kIdSU6O1ZNoQGKuLY3VotsHXR536X5v9Ajx0W5Q |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1111_add_15773 crossref_primary_10_1177_08901171241235733 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pec_2019_07_013 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_024_19388_8 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2023_1098312 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_082654 crossref_primary_10_1111_dom_14975 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12933_023_01939_9 crossref_primary_10_1080_14779072_2024_2333786 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41746_023_00748_4 crossref_primary_10_17116_medtech20254703161 crossref_primary_10_1161_HYPERTENSIONAHA_118_12110 crossref_primary_10_2147_COPD_S279645 crossref_primary_10_17269_s41997_020_00348_9 crossref_primary_10_2196_17257 crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2021_765454 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_121_055784 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_020_01022_x crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_063289 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13195_021_00875_8 crossref_primary_10_1161_JAHA_124_035930 crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehae178 crossref_primary_10_1136_heartjnl_2019_316217 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_10491_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40814_021_00874_4 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_122_062746 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12967_021_02984_2 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.CD006887.pub4 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| EndPage | CD006887 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 28290160 |
| Genre | Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: NHLBI NIH HHS grantid: T32 HL069771 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c5394-d21917c69cd347adff651796e96abc25d316365c989f5cd42beaa924392ca0cf2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 111 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000400761200020&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 10:48:46 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 24 01:31:38 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c5394-d21917c69cd347adff651796e96abc25d316365c989f5cd42beaa924392ca0cf2 |
| Notes | SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 ObjectType-Article-3 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006887.pub4/media/CDSR/CD006887/CD006887.pdf |
| PMID | 28290160 |
| PQID | 1877527809 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1877527809 pubmed_primary_28290160 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2017-03-14 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2017-03-14 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2017 text: 2017-03-14 day: 14 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2017 |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.537895 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the... BACKGROUNDThe current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention.... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | CD006887 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Anticholesteremic Agents - therapeutic use Antihypertensive Agents - therapeutic use Blood Pressure Cardiovascular Diseases - blood Cardiovascular Diseases - etiology Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control Cholesterol - blood Heart Diseases - prevention & control Humans Primary Prevention - methods Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Risk Assessment Risk Factors Stroke - prevention & control |
| Title | Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28290160 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1877527809 |
| Volume | 3 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000400761200020&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8QwEA7qinjx_VhfRPBat5u2eZxkWV287LKIwt5KMmlgEdrVqr_fSZtVPAiCl_ZU2kwnmW_yTeYj5ApBhXZciAiEb6qtuIkkV5isCGEMBqhYmrQRmxCTiZzN1DRsuNWhrHK5JjYLta3A75H3-lKIjAkZq5vFS-RVozy7GiQ0Vkknwbd6rxazLxYhwYksl6eCY9bre91vmcnr4a0_GSGFH3L6O7RsQsxo-78ft0O2Arikg9YbdslKUe6RjXGgz_fJ4GFeP9MamqI7inCVIvyji7bhBN6LUPxIK0fhR6EqDUTOAXka3T0O76OgoRBBlqg0sswnZMAV2CQV2jrHfVMuXiiuDbDMJgjIeAZKKpeBTZkptMacDGET6BgcOyRrZVUWx4QKA1z2M-NsYtGSyiSCgTHaSgMuFbJLLpfGydFHPfGgy6J6r_Nv83TJUWvhPIwtb5lcHp_84elTssl8VPXldOkZ6TicocU5WYePt3n9etH8fLxOpuNP8g66eA |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Risk+scoring+for+the+primary+prevention+of+cardiovascular+disease&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Karmali%2C+Kunal+N&rft.au=Persell%2C+Stephen+D&rft.au=Perel%2C+Pablo&rft.au=Lloyd-Jones%2C+Donald+M&rft.date=2017-03-14&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=3&rft.spage=CD006887&rft.epage=CD006887&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.CD006887.pub4&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |