Prediction of individualized lifetime benefit from cholesterol lowering, blood pressure lowering, antithrombotic therapy, and smoking cessation in apparently healthy people.

AIMS: The benefit an individual can expect from preventive therapy varies based on risk-factor burden, competing risks, and treatment duration. We developed and validated the LIFEtime-perspective CardioVascular Disease (LIFE-CVD) model for the estimation of individual-level 10 years and lifetime treatment-effects of cholesterol lowering, blood pressure lowering, antithrombotic therapy, and smoking cessation in apparently healthy people. METHODS AND RESULTS: Model development was conducted in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (n = 6715) using clinical predictors. The model consists of two complementary Fine and Gray competing-risk adjusted left-truncated subdistribution hazard functions: one for hard cardiovascular disease (CVD)-events, and one for non-CVD mortality. Therapy-effects were estimated by combining the functions with hazard ratios from preventive therapy trials. External validation was performed in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (n = 9250), Heinz Nixdorf Recall (n = 4177), and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Netherlands (n = 25 833), and Norfolk (n = 23 548) studies. Calibration of the LIFE-CVD model was good and c-statistics were 0.67-0.76. The output enables the comparison of short-term vs. long-term therapy-benefit. In two people aged 45 and 70 with otherwise identical risk-factors, the older patient has a greater 10-year absolute risk reduction (11.3% vs. 1.0%) but a smaller gain in life-years free of CVD (3.4 vs. 4.5 years) from the same therapy. The model was developed into an interactive online calculator available via www.U-Prevent.com. CONCLUSION: The model can accurately estimate individual-level prognosis and treatment-effects in terms of improved 10-year risk, lifetime risk, and life-expectancy free of CVD. The model is easily accessible and can be used to facilitate personalized-medicine and doctor-patient communication

Improving 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction in apparently healthy people : flexible addition of risk modifiers on top of SCORE2

AIMS: In clinical practice, factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) like albuminuria, education level, or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are often known, but not incorporated in cardiovascular risk prediction models. The aims of the current study were to evaluate a methodology for the flexible addition of risk modifying characteristics on top of SCORE2 and to quantify the added value of several clinically relevant risk modifying characteristics. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individuals without previous CVD or DM were included from the UK Biobank; Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC); Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA); European Prospective Investigation into Cancer, The Netherlands (EPIC-NL); and Heinz Nixdorf Recall (HNR) studies (n = 409 757) in whom 16 166 CVD events and 19 149 non-cardiovascular deaths were observed over exactly 10.0 years of follow-up. The effect of each possible risk modifying characteristic was derived using competing risk-adjusted Fine and Gray models. The risk modifying characteristics were applied to individual predictions with a flexible method using the population prevalence and the subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of the relevant predictor. Risk modifying characteristics that increased discrimination most were CAC percentile with 0.0198 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0115; 0.0281] and hs-Troponin-T with 0.0100 (95% CI 0.0063; 0.0137). External validation was performed in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) cohort (UK, n = 518 015, 12 675 CVD events). Adjustment of SCORE2-predicted risks with both single and multiple risk modifiers did not negatively affect calibration and led to a modest increase in discrimination [0.740 (95% CI 0.736-0.745) vs. unimproved SCORE2 risk C-index 0.737 (95% CI 0.732-0.741)]. CONCLUSION: The current paper presents a method on how to integrate possible risk modifying characteristics that are not included in existing CVD risk models for the prediction of CVD event risk in apparently healthy people. This flexible methodology improves the accuracy of predicted risks and increases applicability of prediction models for individuals with additional risk known modifiers

SPRINT trial : It's not just the blood pressure!

Background The SPRINT trial showed a beneficial effect of systolic blood pressure treatment targets of 120 mmHg on cardiovascular risk compared to targets of 140 mmHg. However, differences in medication use, most importantly diuretics, are suggested as an alternative explanation. This post-hoc analysis aimed to determine whether the reduced event rate can be attributed to changes in systolic blood pressure (ΔSBP) . Methods Analyses were based on all 9361 participants of the SPRINT trial. ΔSBP was defined as the change between baseline and 6-month follow-up systolic blood pressure. Major cardiovascular events were myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death. Cox regression was used to describe the relation between ΔSBP and major cardiovascular events. Analyses were performed separately for patients in the lowest tertile of baseline systolic blood pressure, as the SPRINT trial reported the highest treatment effect in this subgroup. Results The relation between ΔSBP and major cardiovascular events was a hazard ratio per 10 mmHg decrease of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.98). Similar results were found within the lowest tertile of baseline systolic blood pressure: hazard ratio per 10 mmHg decrease 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.01). Conclusion Our results show that lowering blood pressure prevents cardiovascular disease. However, not all the positive effects in the SPRINT trial could be explained by ΔSBP. Alternative explanations, such as differences in medication use, should be considered for the positive findings of the SPRINT trial

SPRINT trial : It's not just the blood pressure!

Background The SPRINT trial showed a beneficial effect of systolic blood pressure treatment targets of 120 mmHg on cardiovascular risk compared to targets of 140 mmHg. However, differences in medication use, most importantly diuretics, are suggested as an alternative explanation. This post-hoc analysis aimed to determine whether the reduced event rate can be attributed to changes in systolic blood pressure (ΔSBP) . Methods Analyses were based on all 9361 participants of the SPRINT trial. ΔSBP was defined as the change between baseline and 6-month follow-up systolic blood pressure. Major cardiovascular events were myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death. Cox regression was used to describe the relation between ΔSBP and major cardiovascular events. Analyses were performed separately for patients in the lowest tertile of baseline systolic blood pressure, as the SPRINT trial reported the highest treatment effect in this subgroup. Results The relation between ΔSBP and major cardiovascular events was a hazard ratio per 10 mmHg decrease of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.98). Similar results were found within the lowest tertile of baseline systolic blood pressure: hazard ratio per 10 mmHg decrease 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.01). Conclusion Our results show that lowering blood pressure prevents cardiovascular disease. However, not all the positive effects in the SPRINT trial could be explained by ΔSBP. Alternative explanations, such as differences in medication use, should be considered for the positive findings of the SPRINT trial

Risk Stratification in Patients with Ischemic Stroke and Residual Cardiovascular Risk with Current Secondary Prevention

Purpose: Suboptimal secondary prevention in patients with stroke causes a remaining cardiovascular risk desirable to reduce. We have validated a prognostic model for secondary preventive settings and estimated future cardiovascular risk and theoretical benefit of reaching guideline recommended risk factor targets. Patients and Methods: The SMART-REACH (Secondary Manifestations of Arterial Disease-Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) model for 10-year and lifetime risk of cardiovascular events was applied to 465 patients in the Norwegian Cognitive Impairment After Stroke (Nor-COAST) study, a multicenter observational study with twoyear follow-up by linkage to national registries for cardiovascular disease and mortality. The residual risk when reaching recommended targets for blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking cessation and antithrombotics was estimated. Results: In total, 11.2% had a new event. Calibration plots showed adequate agreement between estimated and observed 2-year prognosis (C-statistics 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.55–0.71). Median estimated 10-year risk of recurrent cardiovascular events was 42% (Interquartile range (IQR) 32–54%) and could be reduced to 32% by optimal guidelinebased therapy. The corresponding numbers for lifetime risk were 70% (IQR 63–76%) and 61%. We estimated an overall median gain of 1.4 (IQR 0.2–3.4) event-free life years if guideline targets were met. Conclusion: Secondary prevention was suboptimal and residual risk remains elevated even after optimization according to current guidelines. Considerable interindividual variation in risk exists, with a corresponding variation in benefit from intensification of treatment. The SMART-REACH model can be used to identify patients with the largest benefit from more intensive treatment and follow-up

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology

A new selection method to increase the health benefits of CVD prevention strategies.

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is commonly focused on providing individuals at high predicted CVD risk with preventive medication. Whereas CVD risk increases rapidly with age, current risk-based selection of individuals mainly targets the elderly. However, the lifelong (preventable) consequences of CVD events may be larger in younger individuals. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if health benefits from preventive treatment may increase when the selection strategy is further optimised. Methods Data from three Dutch cohorts were combined ( n = 47469, men:women 1:1.92) and classified into subgroups based on age and gender. The Framingham global risk score was used to estimate 10-year CVD risk. The associated lifelong burden of CVD events according to this 10-year CVD risk was expressed as quality-adjusted life years lost. Based on this approach, the additional health benefits from preventive treatment, reducing this 10-year CVD risk, from selecting individuals based on their expected CVD burden rather than their expected CVD risk were estimated. These benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years gained over lifetime. Results When using the current selection strategy (10% risk threshold), 32% of the individuals were selected for preventive treatment. When the same proportion was selected based on burden, more younger and fewer older individuals would receive treatment. Across all individuals, the gain in quality-adjusted life years was 217 between the two strategies, over a 10-year time horizon. In addition, when combining the strategies 5% extra eligible individuals were selected resulting in a gain of 628 quality-adjusted life years. Conclusion Improvement of the selection approach of individuals can help to reduce further the CVD burden. Selecting individuals for preventive treatment based on their expected CVD burden will provide more younger and fewer older individuals with treatment, and will reduce the overall CVD burden

A new selection method to increase the health benefits of CVD prevention strategies

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is commonly focused on providing individuals at high predicted CVD risk with preventive medication. Whereas CVD risk increases rapidly with age, current risk-based selection of individuals mainly targets the elderly. However, the lifelong (preventable) consequences of CVD events may be larger in younger individuals. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if health benefits from preventive treatment may increase when the selection strategy is further optimised. Methods Data from three Dutch cohorts were combined ( n = 47469, men:women 1:1.92) and classified into subgroups based on age and gender. The Framingham global risk score was used to estimate 10-year CVD risk. The associated lifelong burden of CVD events according to this 10-year CVD risk was expressed as quality-adjusted life years lost. Based on this approach, the additional health benefits from preventive treatment, reducing this 10-year CVD risk, from selecting individuals based on their expected CVD burden rather than their expected CVD risk were estimated. These benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years gained over lifetime. Results When using the current selection strategy (10% risk threshold), 32% of the individuals were selected for preventive treatment. When the same proportion was selected based on burden, more younger and fewer older individuals would receive treatment. Across all individuals, the gain in quality-adjusted life years was 217 between the two strategies, over a 10-year time horizon. In addition, when combining the strategies 5% extra eligible individuals were selected resulting in a gain of 628 quality-adjusted life years. Conclusion Improvement of the selection approach of individuals can help to reduce further the CVD burden. Selecting individuals for preventive treatment based on their expected CVD burden will provide more younger and fewer older individuals with treatment, and will reduce the overall CVD burden

Prediction of individualized lifetime benefit from cholesterol lowering, blood pressure lowering, antithrombotic therapy, and smoking cessation in apparently healthy people.

AIMS: The benefit an individual can expect from preventive therapy varies based on risk-factor burden, competing risks, and treatment duration. We developed and validated the LIFEtime-perspective CardioVascular Disease (LIFE-CVD) model for the estimation of individual-level 10 years and lifetime treatment-effects of cholesterol lowering, blood pressure lowering, antithrombotic therapy, and smoking cessation in apparently healthy people. METHODS AND RESULTS: Model development was conducted in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (n = 6715) using clinical predictors. The model consists of two complementary Fine and Gray competing-risk adjusted left-truncated subdistribution hazard functions: one for hard cardiovascular disease (CVD)-events, and one for non-CVD mortality. Therapy-effects were estimated by combining the functions with hazard ratios from preventive therapy trials. External validation was performed in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (n = 9250), Heinz Nixdorf Recall (n = 4177), and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Netherlands (n = 25 833), and Norfolk (n = 23 548) studies. Calibration of the LIFE-CVD model was good and c-statistics were 0.67-0.76. The output enables the comparison of short-term vs. long-term therapy-benefit. In two people aged 45 and 70 with otherwise identical risk-factors, the older patient has a greater 10-year absolute risk reduction (11.3% vs. 1.0%) but a smaller gain in life-years free of CVD (3.4 vs. 4.5 years) from the same therapy. The model was developed into an interactive online calculator available via www.U-Prevent.com. CONCLUSION: The model can accurately estimate individual-level prognosis and treatment-effects in terms of improved 10-year risk, lifetime risk, and life-expectancy free of CVD. The model is easily accessible and can be used to facilitate personalized-medicine and doctor-patient communication