Implications of Changing National Cholesterol Education Program Goals for the Treatment and Control of Hypercholesterolemia

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611-2927, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 03/2006; 21(2):171-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00323.x
Source: PubMed


Modifications to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines lowered optional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals.
We evaluated the implications of widely adopting these optional goals in clinical practice.
We performed a cross-sectional study using 1999 to 2002 data from 3,281 U.S. adults aged 20 to 79 years participating the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
The primary outcomes were the proportions of adults whose fasting LDL-C levels exceeded NCEP recommended and optional targets from 2001 and 2004. We used survey weights to estimate the size of the U.S. population exceeding targets. We examined outcomes for 4 coronary disease risk subgroups described by the NCEP.
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values exceeded 2001 NCEP goals for 30.0% of adults, and 35.8% had levels above optional 2004 goals. An estimated 24,900,000 individuals (14.2%) exceeded 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, 46,200,000 (26.3%) exceeded optional 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, and 56,500,000 (32.2%) were above the optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. For lower, moderate, moderately high, and high-risk groups, 13.4%, 44.2%, 58.8%, and 71.8%, respectively, exceeded 2001 NCEP goals; 13.4%, 15.7%, 87.4%, and 96.0% of these groups exceeded optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy.
In 1999 to 2002, LDL-C levels commonly exceeded 2001 NCEP goals, especially for moderately high and high-risk individuals, and cholesterol-lowering medications were underused. Optional goals promulgated by the NCEP in 2001 and 2004 moderately increased the number of adults with LDL-C above their goal, and greatly increased the number of low, moderately high, and high-risk adults who exceeded LDL-C thresholds, for cholesterol-lowering medication.

Download full-text


Available from: David W Baker, Aug 11, 2014
  • Source
    • "However, the point-based system has remained in widespread use in both clinical practice and research, including widespread application in computerized risk prediction tools.4–8 Given that approximately 36 million persons in the US are eligible for lipid-lowering therapy, differences in classification could result in millions of persons receiving different lipid-lowering therapy depending on which model is used.9,10 In this study, we used nationally representative data to compare differences in predicted risk between the original and point-based Framingham calculations and to determine the degree to which the point-based system stratifies patients into different risk groups. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version. We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20-79 from the 2001-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10-20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative. Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having "moderate" risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having "moderately high" (10-20%) risk, and 7% as having "high" (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25-46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk. Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2010 · Journal of General Internal Medicine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We propose two types of periodically weighted model-matching problem by linear periodically time-varying (LPTV) control for LTI plants. The causality constraint of LPTV controller is satisfied via a representation that we call dual lifted forms. We show the superiority of LPTV control to LTI control and demonstrate a design example.
    Preview · Conference Paper · Jan 2004
  • Source

    Preview · Article ·
Show more