Guidelines versus trial-evidence for statin use in primary prevention: The Copenhagen General Population Study

Recommendations for statin management in primary prevention: disparities among international risk scores

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Statin recommendations in primary prevention depend upon risk algorithms. Moreover, with intermediate risk, risk enhancers and de-enhancers are advocated to aid decisions. The aim of this study was to compare algorithms used in North America and Europe for the identification of patients warranting statin or consideration of risk enhancers and de-enhancers.

METHODS

A simulated population (n = 7680) equal in males and females, with/without smoking, aged 45-70 years, total cholesterol 3.5-7.0 mmol/L, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 0.6-2.2 mmol/L, and systolic blood pressure 100-170 mmHg, was evaluated. High, intermediate, and low risks were determined using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE), four versions of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2), and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) algorithm (0-1000 Agatston Units).

RESULTS

Concordance for the three levels of risk varied from 19% to 85%. Both sexes might be considered to have low, intermediate, or high risk depending on the algorithm applied, even with the same burden of risk factors. Only SCORE2 (High Risk and Very High Risk versions) identified equal proportions of males and females with high risk. Excluding MESA, the proportion with moderate risk was 25% (SCORE2, Very High Risk Region), 32% (FRS), 39% (PCE), and 45% (SCORE2, Low Risk Region).

CONCLUSION

Risk algorithms differ substantially in their estimation of risk, recommendations for statin treatment, and use of ancillary testing, even in identical patients. These results highlight the limitations of currently used risk-based approaches for addressing lipid-specific risk in primary prevention.

Statin-related Muscle Toxicity: An Evidence-based Review

The efficacy of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease has been proven beyond doubt. The number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular event is 1 in 30 over 10 years, and the number needed to treat for secondary prevention is much lower. However, a recent study demonstrated that only 68% of eligible patients are on statin therapy. Moreover, there seems to be a reluctance to escalate statin doses due to the fear of adverse effects. The adverse effects that worries patients and their physicians most frequently are those related to muscular symptoms. N-of-1 trial evidence suggests that muscular symptoms attributed to statins are often caused by the nocebo effect. This article aims to provide a structured, evidence-based approach to suspected statin-related muscle toxicity.