Chapman Niamh, Breslin Monique, Zhou Zhen, Sharman James E, Nelson Mark R, McManus Richard J
School of Health Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.
J Clin Med. 2024 Jul 26;13(15):4379. doi: 10.3390/jcm13154379.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention guidelines classify people at high risk and recommended for pharmacological treatment based on clinical criteria and absolute CVD risk estimation. Despite relying on similar evidence, recommendations vary between international guidelines, which may impact who is recommended to receive treatment for CVD prevention. To determine the agreement in treatment recommendations according to guidelines from Australia, England and the United States. Cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 2647). Adults ≥ 40 years were classified as high-risk and recommended for treatment according to Australia, England and United States CVD prevention guidelines. Agreement in high-risk classification and recommendation for treatment was assessed by Kappa statistic. Participants were middle aged, 49% were male and 38% were white. The proportion recommended for treatment was highest using the United States guidelines (n = 1318, 49.8%) followed by the English guidelines (n = 1276, 48.2%). In comparison, only 26.6% (n = 705) of participants were classified as recommended for treatment according to the Australian guidelines. There was moderate agreement in the recommendation for treatment between the English and United States guidelines (κ = 0.69 [0.64-0.74]). In comparison, agreement in recommendation for treatment was minimal between the Australian and United States guidelines (κ = 0.47 [0.43-0.52]) and weak between the Australian and English guidelines (κ = 0.50 [0.45-0.55]). Despite similar evidence underpinning guidelines, there is little agreement between guidelines regarding the people recommended to receive treatment for CVD prevention. These findings suggest greater consistency in high-risk classification between CVD prevention guidelines may be required.
心血管疾病(CVD)一级预防指南根据临床标准和绝对CVD风险评估对高危人群进行分类,并推荐进行药物治疗。尽管基于相似的证据,但国际指南之间的推荐存在差异,这可能会影响被推荐接受CVD预防治疗的人群。为了根据澳大利亚、英国和美国的指南确定治疗推荐的一致性。对国家健康和营养检查调查(n = 2647)进行横断面分析。根据澳大利亚、英国和美国的CVD预防指南,将40岁及以上的成年人分类为高危并推荐进行治疗。通过Kappa统计量评估高危分类和治疗推荐的一致性。参与者为中年人,49%为男性,38%为白人。使用美国指南推荐进行治疗的比例最高(n = 1318,49.8%),其次是英国指南(n = 1276,48.2%)。相比之下,根据澳大利亚指南,只有26.6%(n = 705)的参与者被分类为推荐进行治疗。英国和美国指南之间在治疗推荐方面存在中度一致性(κ = 0.69 [0.64 - 0.74])。相比之下,澳大利亚和美国指南之间在治疗推荐方面的一致性最小(κ = 0.47 [0.43 - 0.52]),澳大利亚和英国指南之间的一致性较弱(κ = 0.50 [0.45 - 0.55])。尽管指南有相似的证据基础,但在推荐接受CVD预防治疗的人群方面,指南之间几乎没有一致性。这些发现表明,可能需要CVD预防指南在高危分类方面有更高的一致性。