Why the study?
Do age-differentiated risk thresholds reduce the number of patients treated while maintaining life years gained in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?
Do age-differentiated risk thresholds reduce the number of patients treated while maintaining life years gained in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?
Age-differentiated risk thresholds for primary prevention of CVD can substantially reduce the medicalization of healthy older adults without significantly compromising population health gains.
Supports age-differentiated thresholds to limit overtreatment in older adults; challenges uniform European risk approaches for primary CVD prevention.
Norway decided not to follow European guidelines on preventing cardiovascular disease and instead developed its own with age based thresholds. Ole Norheim and colleagues explain the rationale behind them
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Norheim et al. (2011) studied Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Age-differentiated risk thresholds vs. Universal 5% risk threshold (European guidelines) was evaluated on Number of patients recommended for treatment and life years gained. Age-differentiated risk thresholds recommended fewer patients for treatment (198,100 vs 247,100) while yielding similar undiscounted life years gained (531,000 vs 539,000) compared to a universal 5% threshold.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: