Recommendations for statin management in primary prevention: disparities among international risk scores
Authors' conclusion
Risk algorithms differ substantially in their estimation of risk, recommendations for statin treatment, and use of ancillary testing, even in identical patients.
Study context
- Population
- Simulated primary prevention population, equal males and females, with/without smoking, aged 45–70 years, total cholesterol 3.5–7.0 mmol/L, HDL-C 0.6–2.2 mmol/L, SBP 100–170 mmHgsimulated population
- Participants
- 7,680 participants
- Comparison
- Framingham Risk Score (FRS) vs Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) vs SCORE2 vs Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) risk algorithms
- Outcome
- Identification of patients warranting statin or consideration of risk enhancers and de-enhancers (high, intermediate, low risk)
Methodological detailssimulated population
- Simulated population
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Concordance for the three levels of risk
Concordance for the three levels of risk across algorithms
19% to 85%
Further findings
| Outcome | FRS | PCE |
|---|---|---|
| Proportion with moderate risk (excluding MESA) | 32% | 39% |
- Proportion with moderate risk (excluding MESA): SCORE2, Very High Risk Region 25%
- Proportion with moderate risk (excluding MESA): SCORE2, Low Risk Region 45%
Sex balance of high-risk identification
- Only SCORE2 (High Risk and Very High Risk versions) identified equal proportions of males and females with high risk
Original publication
Recommendations for statin management in primary prevention: disparities among international risk scores. Eur Heart J. Published 28 August 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →