![]()
Case Finding (Who to Screen)
An
Evidence-Based Alternative
This is
not a Palm application. It will run from the web, or it
can be downloaded to your own computer and run from there as a web page.
This
calculator focuses on primary prevention of
cardiovascular events in people without known heart disease. Derivation tables come from guidelines
recently published by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (1) and the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force (2) for lipids and ASA
respectively. The revised 2009 lipid
tables from the Framingham study were used as a source for the Canadian
Cardiovascular Society recommendations (3). Guidelines are largely based on randomized
controlled studies, however family history recommendations are of necessity
based on cohort studies, and interpretation of the literature with respect to
diabetics is still somewhat controversial.
ASA recommendations for women are still open to interpretation in
primary prevention, and therapy should be decided on a case by case basis. See the ASA derivation tables for discussion.
Source
studies are done mainly in North America.
It has been shown that results may be suspect in the following groups:
Because the
FRS is currently used as a guide to both lipid and ASA recommendations for
primary prevention, ASA guidelines are included in this calculator. Decision analysis for ASA is now more complex
than simply treating each person with a risk over 10%. The risk of GI hemorrhage must also be taken
into account, and this risk is considered in the Preventive Task Force
guidelines. The guidelines are firm for
men, whose risk is primarily myocardial infarction. They are less firm for women between 55 and
65, whose primary risk is stroke.
Another
choice to increase precision in those with 10-19% 10-year risk is the use of
hsCRP. In males over age 50 and females
over age 60 a hsCRP over 2 has been shown with good evidence to change risk
status when LDL is below 3.5 mmol/L.
This is also included in the calculator as an option, and the
recommendation for this test will be flagged if the patient meets the criteria,
and the recommendation would be to treat as high risk with a statin based on
the JUPITER trial (7). Patients in the moderate risk category
receive a treatment recommendation if LDL if above 3.5 mmol/L. Use of CRP remains optional for this
calculator because there is disagreement as to whether outcomes are
improved. For a brief discussion of an
alternative approach to guidelines, please use the evidence based alternative
link.
Currently
diabetics are evaluated similarly to non-diabetics unless a woman is over 50 or
a man over 45. Over these age cutoffs
they are considered high risk (>20%).
Under this age with one additional risk factor they are also considered
high risk. The calculator will flag
these conditions. Remember that there
are risk factors which are not put into the calculator.
Decision
analysis for primary prevention has become more evidence-based and
complex. Use of tables is still
possible, but it is prone to error and consumes a great deal of time. For decisions which have to be made several
times a day by primary care providers, a more efficient means of calculation is
necessary. Existing older calculators
tend to underestimate risk substantially.
Many of them are developed using U.S. units of measurement, which become
confusing to those of us using SI units.
This calculator incorporates the evidence in a Canadian context as of
late 2008, and is available on the web or by download for unrestricted
use. It is not recommended or adopted by
any credible organization, but it seems to be accurate, and results can be
checked against source tables by the user until there is confidence that it
works properly. The javascript source
code is available for those who wish to make their own adaptations. The author unfortunately does not have the
programming skills to make this available in PDA format.
Caveat: Strict
use of this calculator follows the JUPITER criteria, and will result in statin
treatment of up to 62% of adults aged 35-75 (13).
While there is evidence for benefit in treatment of patients down to low
risk, numbers needed to treat become very high.
Given the shaky evidence for hs-CRP as a risk factor and LDL as a
target, an alternative and simplified evidence-based strategy is suggested here. Links
are supplied for those who wish to research this option further.