Hi Jeremy – I agree with James that we shouldn’t use the term high risk. James also makes the important point about there being no 10-year trials of statins. That's one of the main reasons why we estimate 5-year risk rather than 10-year risk in New Zealand. 

I would also suggest you look at the meta-analysis of statin trials from Rory Collins where he stratifies the benefits per 1mmol/L reduction in LDL by 5-year baseline risk. Lancet. 2012 Aug 11;380(9841):581-90.

Cheers Rod Jackson

University of Auckland, New Zealand

 

From: "Evidence based health (EBH)" <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of "McCormack, James" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "McCormack, James" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, 17 January 2017 5:39 am
To: "Evidence based health (EBH)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: absolute benefit of statins

Hi Jeremy - "high risk" - a term we should never use because it means different things to different people is typically considered to be a >20% absolute risk of CVD over 10 years but I’ve seen many different thresholds - another reason yet again to not use the term.

To get the absolute benefit I just assume statins reduce CVD relatively by 25-35% depending on what doses are used and apply that number to the baseline risk.

With all the caveats - there are no 10 year studies, risk calculators typically overestimate risk etc.

Try using our calculator at cvdcalculator.com

Hope that helps.

James

On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Jeremy Howick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Does anyone have any information about the ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION of statins for high risk individuals?

I realise that ‘high risk’ is classified a number of ways, as long as it is specified I don’t might which classification is used.

Thanks in advance!

Jeremy
<C99CD4A2-1A25-42E0-9468-06411E84080B.png>
 
T: +44 (0)1865 289 258 E: [log in to unmask]

 

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford
Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG