Guidelines versus trial-evidence for statin use in primary prevention: The Copenhagen General Population Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guideline-recommended use of risk calculators to select for statin therapy in primary prevention has never been tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We determined the extent to which guideline-based statin recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society(CCS), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) is supported by available evidence from RCTs. METHODS: 79,171 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study who were free of ASCVD and statin use at baseline were included. RCT evidence supporting guideline-recommended statin allocation and the estimated number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one ASCVD event were assessed. RESULTS: During 8.2 years of follow-up, 4031 ASCVD events occurred. Of individuals eligible for statin therapy with the ACC/AHA, CCS, NICE and ESC/EAS guidelines, 86%, 88%, 88% and 84% had direct RCT evidence of statin efficacy, respectively (guideline-positive&RCT-positive). This group represented 26-37% of all 79,171 individuals, while guideline-positive&RCT-negative individuals represented 5-7%, guideline-negative&RCT-positive individuals 28-39%, and guideline-negative&RCT-negative individuals represented 30-31%. The ASCVD events per 1000 person-years were 11.4-12.7 (guideline-positive&RCT-positive), 6.3-8.0 (guideline-positive&RCT-negative), 4.2-5.2 (guideline-negative&RCT-positive), and 2.3-2.5 (guideline-negative&RCT-negative), respectively, while the corresponding NNT to prevent one event in 10 years using high-intensity statin were 19-21, 30-32, 48-60, and 105-125, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The far majority of individuals eligible for guideline-recommended primary prevention with statins have direct RCT evidence supporting statin use. Allocating statins based on guideline-criteria is more efficient with lower NNT for preventing ASCVD events than allocating statin therapy based solely on RCT evidence.
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 | 0.029 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".