The Expected 30-Year Benefits of Early Versus Delayed Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease by Lipid Lowering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering recommendations for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease rely principally on estimated 10-year risk. We sought to determine the optimal time for initiation of lipid lowering in younger adults as a function of expected 30-year benefit. METHODS: Data from 3148 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009-2016) participants, age 30 to 59 years, not eligible for lipid-lowering treatment recommendation under the most recent US guidelines, were analyzed. We estimated the absolute and relative impact of lipid lowering as a function of age, age at initiation, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level on the expected rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease over the succeeding 30 years. We modeled expected risk reductions based on shorter-term effects observed in statin trials (model A) and longer-term benefits based on Mendelian randomization studies (model B). RESULTS: In both models, potential reductions in predicted 30-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk were greater with older age and higher non-HDL-C level. Immediate initiation of lipid lowering (ie, treatment for 30 years) in 40- to 49-year-old patients with non-HDL-C ≥160 mg/dL would be expected to reduce their average predicted 30-year risk of 17.1% to 11.6% (model A; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 5.5%) or 6.5% (model B; ARR 10.6%). Delaying lipid lowering by 10 years (treatment for 20 years) would result in residual 30-year risk of 12.7% (A; ARR 4.4) or 9.9% (B; ARR 7.2%) and delaying by 20 years (treatment for 10 years) would lead to expected mean residual risk of 14.6% (A; ARR 2.6%) or 13.9% (B; ARR 3.2%). The slope of the achieved ARR as a function of delay in treatment was also higher with older age and higher non-HDL-C level. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reduction in expected atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in the next 30 years is achievable by intensive lipid lowering in individuals in their 40s and 50s with non-HDL-C ≥160 mg/dL. For many, the question of when to start lipid lowering might be more relevant than whether to start lipid lowering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".