Skip to main content
Log in

Mismatch of coronary risk and treatment intensity under the national cholesterol education program guidelines

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective:To assess the match between multifactorial risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and treatment intensity under the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines for primary prevention of CHD.

Methods:The multiple logistic regression equation from the Framingham Study was used to derive predicted risks for development of CHD over eight years of follow-up for different age — gender groupings, with serum total cholesterol (TC) values chosen in light of the NCEP cutoff points for both TC and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Additional risk factors — hypertension, glucose intolerance, and smoking—were considered in combination for each of these values.

Results:Controlling for the effects of age and gender, there is little difference in the ranges of absolute CHD risks for persons who would receive interventions of differing intensities (i.e., general dietary advice, dietary treatment, or drug therapy). Those who are candidates for drug treatment because of serum lipids alone are often at low levels of risk for the development of CHD when compared with those of the same age with lower TC values who have other risk factors. Discrepancies in CHD risk are wider still when age is also allowed to vary. Furthermore, in every age grouping, women with high TC levels (e.g., 6.9 mmol/L) and two other risk factors are eligible for drug treatment but have a CHD risk that is no higher, and often much lower, than that of males with one other risk factor and TC levels of 4.8 mmol/L or 5.7 mmol/L who are candidates for dietary advice or dietary therapy, respectively.

Conclusions:Inconsistencies exist in the NCEP guidelines such that persons at low risk for the development of CHD are offered more intensive interventions than are others who actually are at much higher risks, and vice versa. Women in particular tend to be overtreated, relative to men. These findings point out the difficulties of promulgating guidelines that will appropriately match risk to preventive interventions in a complex multifactorial disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Expert Panel. Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:36–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Study Group, European Atherosclerosis Society. Strategies for the prevention of coronary heart disease: a policy statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society. Eur Heart J. 1987;8:77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Toronto Working Group on Cholesterol Policy (Naylor CD, Basinski A, Frank JW, Rachlis MM). Asymptomatic hypercholesterolemia: a clinical policy review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:1021–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Consensus statement: blood cholesterol measurement in the prevention of coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1989;ii:115–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The Canadian Consensus Conference on Cholesterol: final report. Can Med Assoc J. 1988;139(suppl):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Keys A. Seven countries: a multivariate analysis of death and coronary heart disease. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  7. McGee D. The Framingham Study: an epidemiological investigation of cardiovascular disease (section 28). The probability of developing certain cardiovascular diseases in eight years at specified values of some characteristics. US-DHEW Pub. No. 74-618, 1973.

  8. Gordon T, Kannel WB. Multiple risk functions for predicting coronary heart disease: the concept, accuracy and application. Am Heart J. 1982;103:1031–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grundy SM, Goodman DS, Rifkind BM, Cleeman JI. The place of HDL in cholesterol management. A perspective from the National Cholesterol Program. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:505–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Seltzer CC. Framingham Study data and “established wisdom” about cigarette smoking and coronary heart disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:743–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kristensen TS, Olsen O, Moller L. Mistakes in “established wisdom” about cigarette smoking? J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:99–102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kinlay S, Heller RF. Effectiveness and hazards of case-finding for a high cholesterol concentration. Br Med J. 1990;300:1545–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shepherd J, Betteridge DJ, Durrington P, et al. Strategies for reducing coronary heart disease and desirable limits for blood lipid concentrations: guidelines of the British Hyperlipidaemia Association. Br Med J. 1987;295:1245–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McIsaac, W.J., Naylor, C.D. & Basinski, A. Mismatch of coronary risk and treatment intensity under the national cholesterol education program guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 6, 518–523 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02598220

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02598220

Key words

Navigation