CLINICAL STUDIES
The relative influence of secondary versus primary prevention using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II guidelines
Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, FACC*,
Pamela Coxson, PhD*,
Maria G. M. Hunink, MD, PhD ,
Paula A. Goldman, MPH ,
Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD ,
Murray Mittleman, DrPh, MDCM||,
Lawrence Williams, MS¶ and
Milton C. Weinstein, PhD
* Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA
Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Clinical Research, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
|| Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
¶ Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Manuscript received October 6, 1998;
revised manuscript received April 2, 1999,
accepted May 14, 1999.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Lee Goldman, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, California 94143-0120
goldman{at}medicine.ucsf.edu
OBJECTIVES
This study was undertaken to project the population-wide effect of full implementation of the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) II guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).
BACKGROUND
The ATP II has proposed guidelines for cholesterol reduction, but the long-term epidemiologic influence of its components has not been fully examined.
METHODS
We used a calibrated, validated simulation of the U.S. population, aged 35 to 84 years to estimate the potential for the NCEP guidelines, under varying assumptions, to reduce coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality and overall mortality from the years 2000 to 2020.
RESULTS
Primary prevention would yield only about half of the benefits of secondary prevention despite requiring nearly twice as many person-years of treatment. The projected increase in quality-adjusted years of life per year of treatment for secondary prevention was 3- to 12-fold higher than for primary prevention. To yield population-wide epidemiologic benefits equivalent to NCEP recommendations for secondary prevention, primary prevention would require a nearly sixfold increase in the number of persons treated compared with NCEP recommendations. All benefits of universal success of the NCEP primary prevention "screen and treat" guidelines could be achieved by a 11 mg/dl (8%) population-wide reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels among persons without preexisting coronary heart disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The NCEP guidelines for targeted primary prevention can be a useful component of a rational public health strategy, but only as a complement to the more appealing strategies of secondary prevention and "across-the-board" programs to lower all cholesterol levels.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ATP | = Adult Treatment Plan | | HDL | = high-density lipoprotein | | LDL | = low-density lipoprotein | | NCEP | = National Cholesterol Education Program | | NHANES | = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey |
|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. J. Pletcher, L. Lazar, K. Bibbins-Domingo, A. Moran, N. Rodondi, P. Coxson, J. Lightwood, L. Williams, and L. Goldman
Comparing Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Strategies for Lipid-Lowering
Ann Intern Med,
February 17, 2009;
150(4):
243 - 254.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Califf, T. Ryan, P. Douglas, and P. J. Goldschmidt-Clermont
A time of accelerated change in academic cardiovascular medicine: Implications for academic divisions of cardiology and their training programs
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
November 16, 2004;
44(10):
1957 - 1965.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Spertus, M. J. Radford, N. R. Every, E. F. Ellerbeck, E. D. Peterson, and H. M. Krumholz
Challenges and opportunities in quantifying the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: Summary from the acute myocardial infarction working group of the American heart association/American college of cardiology first scientific forum on quality of care and outcomes research in cardiovascular disease and stroke
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 7, 2003;
41(9):
1653 - 1663.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Spertus, M. J. Radford, N. R. Every, E. F. Ellerbeck, E. D. Peterson, and H. M. Krumholz
Challenges and Opportunities in Quantifying the Quality of Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Summary From the Acute Myocardial Infarction Working Group of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology First Scientific Forum on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke
Circulation,
April 1, 2003;
107(12):
1681 - 1691.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
Circulation,
December 17, 2002;
106(25):
3373 - 3421.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Goldman, K. A. Phillips, P. Coxson, P. A. Goldman, L. Williams, M. G. M. Hunink, and M. C. Weinstein
The effect of risk factor reductions between 1981 and 1990 on coronary heart disease incidence, prevalence, mortality and cost
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
October 1, 2001;
38(4):
1012 - 1017.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Higgins
Patients, families and populations at high risk for coronary heart disease
Eur. Heart J.,
September 2, 2001;
22(18):
1682 - 1690.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Phillips, M. G. Shlipak, P. Coxson, P. A. Heidenreich, M. G. M. Hunink, P. A. Goldman, L. W. Williams, M. C. Weinstein, and L. Goldman
Health and Economic Benefits of Increased {beta}-Blocker Use Following Myocardial Infarction
JAMA,
December 6, 2000;
284(21):
2748 - 2754.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Muntwyler and T.F. Luscher
Assessment of cardiovascular risk: time to apply genetic risk factors?
Eur. Heart J.,
April 2, 2000;
21(8):
611 - 613.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
