Related Experiment Videos

Lipid-lowering for prevention of coronary heart disease: what policy now?

I Ul Haq1, L E Ramsay, D M Pickin

  • 1Department of Medicine and Pharmacology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, U.K.

Insights

Lipid-lowering with statins is recommended for individuals with high cholesterol and existing cardiovascular disease or high coronary heart disease risk. Treatment decisions require careful consideration of population needs, risk levels, and cost-effectiveness for both secondary and primary prevention strategies.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Pharmacoeconomics
  • Public Health

Background:

  • Recent outcome trials support lipid-lowering therapy with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins).
  • Justification for statin use is based on risk-benefit analysis in individuals with serum cholesterol > 5.5 mmol/l.
  • Treatment is indicated for those with existing atherosclerotic vascular disease or those at high risk of coronary events.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the prevalence of individuals eligible for secondary and primary prevention with statin therapy.
  • To assess the number of people needing treatment and the cost-effectiveness of statin use.
  • To inform guidelines for appropriate statin treatment policies.

Main Methods:

  • A random stratified sample of UK adults aged 35-69 from the Health Survey for England 1993 was analyzed.
  • Prevalence of cardiovascular disease and high cholesterol (> 5.5 mmol/l) was examined for secondary prevention candidates.
  • Prevalence of high cholesterol and varying coronary heart disease event rates (4.5%, 3.0%, 1.5% per year) was assessed for primary prevention candidates.

Main Results:

  • Approximately 4.8% of the population aged 35-69 are candidates for secondary prevention, with prevalence increasing with age.
  • For secondary prevention, 13 individuals require 5 years of treatment to prevent one coronary event, costing £36,000 per event prevented.
  • Primary prevention targets varied significantly: 0.3% for a 4.5% risk (similar NNT/cost to secondary), 3.4% for a 3.0% risk (20 treated for 5 years/event, £55,000/event), and 19.6% for a 1.5% risk (40 treated for 5 years/event, £111,000/event).

Conclusions:

  • Implementing secondary prevention requires substantial resources, making it the priority.
  • Primary prevention strategies need careful consideration of the number needed to treat, population impact, and cost-effectiveness.
  • Guidelines should balance the benefits of statin therapy against the considerable workload and financial implications for both secondary and primary prevention.

Related Concept Videos