ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Improving Cardiovascular Disease Primary Prevention Treatment Thresholds in a New England Health Care System.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply: Underestimation of Risk or Overascertainment of Events in Assessing Risk Prediction Equations?Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Article
- AHA PREVENT Equations and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Diverse Health Care Populations.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimation based on the pooled cohort equation (PCE) overestimates in population-based cohorts. Whether it performs equally across disaggregated demographics in health care populations is less known. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to recalibrate PCE and rederive prevention thresholds in a contemporary health care system and evaluate its performance across sociodemographics. Methods: We retrospectively inspected electronic health records between 2010 to 2012 and 2020 to 2022 within Mass General Brigham health care in New England region. We compared performance of the original vs recalibrated PCE measured by calibration, discrimination, reclassification rate, and net benefit among 160,926 patients aged 40 to 79 years and without prior ASCVD or lipid-lowering medication. Results: Of the 160,926 patients (mean age: 54.6 ± 8.6 years; 61.4% female), 20,373 (12.7%) developed ASCVD over 10 years. The original PCE globally underestimated ASCVD risk (observed vs predicted incidence rate: 0.13 vs 0.05). Recalibration upclassified risk primarily among individuals with low-to-borderline risk by the original PCE and additionally identified 40% of patients who had undergone ASCVD events yet deemed statin-ineligible based on the original PCE. Treatment thresholds yielding the greatest net benefit were ≥24.0% for women (+23.3%) vs ≥26.0% for men (+18.7%), whereas ≥26.0% for White or other race (+24.7%) vs ≥14.0% Black or African American (+12.5%), respectively. Specifically, Hispanic or Latino and non-Hispanic Black patients conferred the greatest sensitivity improvement at ≥12.3% threshold compared to higher ≥23.6% among non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islanders. Generally, lower thresholds earlier in life were optimal. Conclusions: Recalibration and personalized treatment thresholds derived within a health system may improve prevention treatment allocation efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.