When the recent lipid primary prevention guideline released in 2013, I was deemed at “high risk” for CV disease. This article –
Many critics (including me) felt that the calculator greatly overestimated CV risk. Since the guideline depends on accurate estimation of that risk, testing and potentially improving the calculator has a high priority.
A recent Annals of Internal Medicine article –
Is this a big deal? Let’s use my data as an example. I am 69 years old, have a BP of 124/78, total cholesterol 187 and HDL 75. I have never smoked, and do not have diabetes mellitus. Using the guideline endorsed calculator, my 10 year CV risk is 12.9%. The calculator has this suggestion:
On the basis of your age and calculated risk for heart disease or stroke over 7.5%, the ACC/AHA guidelines suggest you should be on a moderate to high intensity statin.
The newer, better validated and calibrated, calculator estimates my risk at 7.2%. This is a huge difference! With this calculator I do not meet the very aggressive guideline that would suggest that I take a statin.
From the Annals article: “Approximately 11.8 million U.S. adults previously labeled high-risk (10-year risk ?7.5%) by the 2013 PCEs would be relabeled lower-risk by the updated equations.”
This is not a minor issue! How many side effects would we develop in 11.8 million adults? How much money would we spend on medications? We know that labeling patients leads to increased work absenteeism. What other negative outcomes might come or have already come from an inaccurate estimator?
Now a critic might ask why I am so in favor of the newer calculator. Reading the article, and understanding the problems of risk calculators, their data convinces me.
I hope the AHA/ACC read this article and modify their recommendations. I will certainly not start taking a statin given the more accurate estimation.