scholarly journals Comparing primary prevention with secondary prevention to explain decreasing Coronary Heart Disease death rates in Ireland, 1985–2000

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zubair Kabir ◽  
Kathleen Bennett ◽  
Emer Shelley ◽  
Belgin Unal ◽  
Julia A Critchley ◽  
...  
Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2020-317549
Author(s):  
Dirk De Bacquer ◽  
Inge A T van de Luitgaarden ◽  
Delphine De Smedt ◽  
Pieter Vynckier ◽  
Jan Bruthans ◽  
...  

ObjectivePeople’s socioeconomic status (SES) has a major impact on the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in primary prevention. In patients with existing ASCVD these associations are less documented. Here, we evaluate to what extent SES is still associated with patients’ risk profile in secondary prevention.MethodsBased on results from a large sample of patients with coronary heart disease from the European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention through Intervention to Reduce Events study, the relationship between SES and cardiovascular risk was examined. A SES summary score was empirically constructed from the patients’ educational level, self-perceived income, living situation and perception of loneliness.ResultsAnalyses are based on observations in 8261 patients with coronary heart disease from 27 countries. Multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrate that a low SES is associated (OR, 95% CI) with lifestyles such as smoking in men (1.63, 1.37 to 1.95), physical activity in men (1.51, 1.28 to 1.78) and women (1.77, 1.32 to 2.37) and obesity in men 1.28 (1.11 to 1.49) and women 1.65 (1.30 to 2.10). Patients with a low SES have more raised blood pressure in men (1.24, 1.07 to 1.43) and women (1.31, 1.03 to 1.67), used less statins and were less adherent to them. Cardiac rehabilitation programmes were less advised and attended by patients with a low SES. Access to statins in middle-income countries was suboptimal leaving about 80% of patients not reaching the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target of <1.8 mmol/L. Patients’ socioeconomic level was also strongly associated with markers of well-being.ConclusionThese results illustrate the complexity of the associations between SES, well-being and secondary prevention in patients with ASCVD. They emphasise the need for integrating innovative policies in programmes of cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
Mary Seed ◽  
R Mandeno ◽  
C Le Roux

This review summarises current evidence for therapeutic options for hyperlipidaemia in post menopausal women. The two situations in which treatment is recommended are: 1. Primary prevention, which requires assessment of total risk factors for coronary heart disease. a) Statins. AFCAPS/TEXCAPS is the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) to include women. Fewer coronary heart disease (CHD) events, but no difference in mortality was found. b) Hormone replacement therapy (HRT). While there are numerous reports of positive observational epidemiological studies for HRT, there are no completed RCTs. There is little evidence for statin use in women except for familial hypercholesterolaemia. HRT is therefore not only appropriate for its multiple effects on lipoproteins, vascular function and insulin sensitivity but also for prevention of osteoporosis. 2. Secondary prevention, to achieve target total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. a) Statins. The major measurable effect of these drugs is to reduce total and LDL cholesterol. In the RCTs 4S, CARE and LIPID, where 20% of subjects were female, CHD events, but neither CHD mortality nor total mortality were significantly reduced in women. b) HRT. Data available from two RCTs using conjugated equine oestrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate show no benefit. Other studies of HRT have been observational and positive. The effects of treatment on lipoproteins with statins, HRT and the combination have been investigated. In secondary prevention for hyperlipidaemic women to achieve cholesterol <5 and LDL<3 mmol/L statins will be first choice, with HRT a possible addition for its other benefits on cardiovascular risk factors. Choice of HRT medication. The route of administration will affect specific risk factors, eg, oral oestrogen reduces Lp(a) and LDL, increases HDL, while the transdermal route is less effective at reducing Lp(a) and LDL but does not increase triglyceride. Both routes reduce fibrinogen, factor VII and adhesion molecules and improve blood flow. The choice of progestogen will also affect cardiovascular risk factors. The most important lipid risk factors in women are HDL, triglyceride and Lp(a). The risk associated with raised triglyceride and LDL is offset by high HDL. Thus, in women with risk factors in primary prevention, theoretically oral HRT with a non-androgenic progestogen is likely to be of most benefit. However, since long-term adherence to therapy is important in reducing cardiovascular risk, the individual's choice of route and type of HRT is paramount.


1996 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iftikhar Ul Haq ◽  
Lawrence E. Ramsay ◽  
David M. Pickin ◽  
Wilfred W. Yeo ◽  
Peter R. Jackson ◽  
...  

1. Recent outcome trials suggest that lipid-lowering with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors is justifiable on risk-benefit grounds in subjects with serum cholesterol >5.5mmol/l who have coronary heart disease, other forms of atherosclerotic vascular disease, or who are free of vascular disease but have a risk of major coronary events ≥ 1.5% per year. Choice of an appropriate treatment policy will require (i) knowledge of the proportion of the population who will need treatment for secondary prevention, and (ii) targeting of treatment for primary prevention at a specified absolute risk of coronary heart disease events. Selection of an appropriate coronary heart disease risk for primary prevention requires consideration of the number needed to be treated to prevent one coronary heart disease event, the proportion of the population requiring treatment, the cost-effectiveness of treatment and the total cost of treatment. 2. In a random stratified sample of subjects aged 35–69 years from the Health Survey for England 1993 we first examined the prevalence of subjects with cardiovascular disease and serum cholesterol >5.5 mmol/l who may be candidates for secondary prevention. In those free of cardiovascular disease we then examined the prevalence of subjects with serum cholesterol >5.5 mmol/l who had three different levels of coronary heart disease risk: coronary heart disease event rates of 4.5% per year, 3.0% per year and 1.5% per year. These subjects may be candidates for primary prevention depending on the treatment policy selected. 3. For secondary prevention, 4.8% (95% confidence interval 4.3–5.3) of the U.K. population aged 35–69 years might be candidates for 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor treatment, comprising 2.4% (2.0 to 2.7) with a history of myocardial infarction, 1.9% (1.6 to 2.2) with angina and 0.5% (0.3–0.7) with a history of stroke-all with total cholesterol >5.5 mmol/l. The prevalence of these diagnoses with total cholesterol >5.5 mmol/l increased with age, from 1.5% at age 35–39 years to 16.2% at age 65–69 years in men, and from 0.2% at age 35–39 years to 10.0% at age 65–69 years in women. Approximately 13 people would need treatment for 5 years to prevent one coronary event, at a cost of £36 000 per event prevented. The number needing treatment for secondary prevention would increase substantially if treatment was extended to patients above 70 years of age or to those with serum cholesterol ≤ 5.5 mmol/l. 4. Primary prevention aimed at a coronary event risk of 4.5% per year would lead to treatment of only 0.3% (0.2–0.4) of those aged 35–69 years, and those treated would be predominantly older men with additional risk factors for coronary heart disease. The number needed to be treated and cost per coronary event prevented would be similar to those for secondary prevention. 5. Primary prevention targeted at subjects with a coronary event rate of 3.0% per year would entail treating 3.4% (3.0–3.9) of all those aged 35–69 years. At this level of risk, 20 people would need treatment for 5 years to prevent one coronary event, at a cost of £55 000 per event prevented. 6. Primary prevention aimed at a coronary event rate of 1.5% per year would entail treating 19.6% (18.7–20.6) of all subjects aged 35–69 years, and about 80% of men aged 60–69 years for primary or secondary prevention. At this level of risk, 40 people would need treatment for 5 years to prevent one event, at a cost of £111 000 per event saved. 7. Guidelines for 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor treatment should take into account the considerable workload and financial resources needed to implement secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, the accepted first priority. For primary prevention they need to consider the number needed to be treated to prevent one event, the number of subjects needing treatment, the cost-effectiveness of treatment and the total cost of treatment for the population. Considering only the number needed to be treated we would propose treatment for secondary prevention plus primary prevention at a coronary event rate of 3.0% per year. This would entail treating about 8.2% of the U.K. population aged 35–69 years, at an annual cost for drug therapy alone about £18 million per million of the U.K. population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document