New heart health guidelines defended
DALLAS — Heart experts who wrote new guidelines for preventing heart attacks and strokes are backing a formula that some doctors say overestimates risk.
Doctors who drafted the advice for the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology say that any flaws in the formula are small and should not delay the implementation of the guidelines, which expand how many people should consider taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs such as Lipitor and Zocor or their generic forms.
The guidelines, announced last week, are a sea change in heart care. Instead of having people aim for a specific cholesterol number as has been done for decades, the new advice relies on a formula using factors such as age and high blood pressure to estimate a patient's risk.
The Heart Association held a news briefing on Monday at its annual conference in Dallas because a New York Times story featured criticism by several prominent cardiologists.
Dr. Paul Ridker and Dr. Nancy Cook of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston describe in an opinion piece in the British journal Lancet how they tried the formula on patients in three large, observational clinical trials and found it was way off for the number of heart attacks and strokes those patients actually had.
“The predicted risk is roughly twice as high as the observed risk,” Ridker said.
Some doctors don't like the guidelines for reasons that have nothing to do with the risk formula.
Dr. Daniel Rader of the University of Pennsylvania said the older guidelines made it easier for doctors and patients to determine risk, by relying on cholesterol numbers.
“I do think it was a mistake to move away from targets,” he said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.