Key result
Prioritizing individuals for formal CVD risk assessment using the eHEART tool with age- and sex-specific thresholds identified 73% of future events in men and 47% in women, with a number needed to screen of 75 and 162, respectively.
Why the study?
To provide quantitative evidence for systematically prioritising individuals for full formal CVD risk assessment using primary care records with a novel tool with age- and sex-specific risk thresholds.
Does prioritizing individuals using the eHEART tool improve the efficiency of formal cardiovascular disease risk assessment in adults without pre-existing CVD?
Cohort (n=1,642,498)
Does prioritizing individuals using the eHEART tool improve the efficiency of formal cardiovascular disease risk assessment in adults without pre-existing CVD?
Effect estimate: NNS 75 in men, 162 in women (95% CI 72-77 (men), 150-172 (women))
Using the eHEART tool with age- and sex-specific thresholds to prioritize individuals for formal CVD risk assessment improves screening efficiency with minimal reduction in effectiveness for preventing new CVD events.
OBJECTIVE: To provide quantitative evidence for systematically prioritising individuals for full formal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment using primary care records with a novel tool (eHEART) with age- and sex- specific risk thresholds. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: eHEART was derived using landmark Cox models for incident CVD with repeated measures of conventional CVD risk predictors in 1,642,498 individuals from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Using 119,137 individuals from UK Biobank, we modelled the implications of initiating guideline-recommended statin therapy using eHEART with age- and sex-specific prioritisation thresholds corresponding to 5% false negative rates to prioritise adults aged 40-69 years in a population in England for invitation to a formal CVD risk assessment. RESULTS: Formal CVD risk assessment on all adults would identify 76% and 49% of future CVD events amongst men and women respectively, and 93 (95% CI: 90, 95) men and 279 (95% CI: 259, 297) women would need to be screened (NNS) to prevent one CVD event. In contrast, if eHEART was first used to prioritise individuals for formal CVD risk assessment, we would identify 73% and 47% of future events amongst men and women respectively, and a NNS of 75 (95% CI: 72, 77) men and 162 (95% CI: 150, 172) women. Replacing the age- and sex-specific prioritisation thresholds with a 10% threshold identify around 10% less events. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prioritisation tools with age- and sex-specific thresholds could lead to more efficient CVD assessment programmes with only small reductions in effectiveness at preventing new CVD events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chung et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease (n=1,642,498). eHEART tool with age- and sex-specific prioritization thresholds vs. Formal CVD risk assessment on all adults was evaluated on Number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one CVD event (NNS 75 in men, 162 in women, 95% CI 72-77 (men), 150-172 (women)). Prioritizing individuals for formal CVD risk assessment using the eHEART tool with age- and sex-specific thresholds identified 73% of future events in men and 47% in women, with a number needed to screen of 75 and 162, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: