Key result
Total cardiovascular risk management would require treating 5% of adults to avert 92 events per 100,000 annually, compared to treating 60% to avert 157 events with single-risk-factor management.
Why the study?
Does total cardiovascular risk management improve cost-effectiveness compared to single-risk-factor management for the prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals aged 40-64 years?
Population
Individuals aged 40-64 years in Seychelles
Comparison
Total cardiovascular risk management vs Single-risk-factor management
Design
Other
Follow-up
10 years (modeled)
Authors
Loading...
May optimize prevention efficiency via total risk management in adults 40-64; leaves open need for randomized trials to guide practice.
Cross-Sectional
Does total cardiovascular risk management improve cost-effectiveness compared to single-risk-factor management for the prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals aged 40-64 years?
Management based on high total cardiovascular risk optimizes the balance between the number requiring treatment and the number of events averted compared to single-risk-factor management.
Ndindjock et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk. Total cardiovascular risk management vs. Single-risk-factor management was evaluated on Number of people requiring treatment to avert one CV event and number of events potentially averted over 10 years. Total cardiovascular risk management would require treating 5% of adults to avert 92 events per 100,000 annually, compared to treating 60% to avert 157 events with single-risk-factor management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: