QSHC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Quality and Safety in Health Care 2006;15:339-343; doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.017061
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gemmell, I
Right arrow Articles by Durrington, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gemmell, I
Right arrow Articles by Durrington, P

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Potential population impact of the UK government strategy for reducing the burden of coronary heart disease in England: comparing primary and secondary prevention strategies

I Gemmell1, R F Heller1, K Payne2, R Edwards1, M Roland3, P Durrington4

1 Evidence for Population Health Unit, School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2 North West Genetics Knowledge Park, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
3 National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
4 Division of Cardiovascular and Endocrine Science, Department of Medicine, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr I Gemmell
Evidence for Population Health Unit, School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT, UK; islay.gemmell{at}manchester.ac.uk Objective: To use population impact measures to help prioritise the National Service Framework (NSF) strategies recommended by the UK government for reducing the population burden of coronary heart disease (CHD).

Design: Modelling study.

Setting: Primary care.

Data sources: Published data on incidence, baseline risk and prevalence of risk factors for CHD and the proportion treated, eligible for treatment, and adhering to the different interventions. Data from meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relative risk and relative risk reduction associated with different risk factors and interventions.

Main outcome measures: Population impact measures for the decline in the prevalence of a risk factor and the increased uptake of interventions expressed as number of CHD events prevented in the population.

Results: If lifestyle targets for primary prevention are met, 73 522 (95% CI 54 117 to 95 826) CHD events would be prevented per year, with the greatest gain coming from reduced cholesterol and blood pressure levels. In those at high risk of developing CHD, achieving target levels for lifestyle interventions would prevent 4410 (95% CI 1 993 to 8014) CHD events and for pharmacological treatments 2008 (95% CI 790 to 3627) CHD events. For patients with established CHD, achieving NSF targets will result in the prevention of 3067 (95% CI 1572 to 5878) CHD events through improved drug treatment and 1103 (95% CI 179 to 2097) events through lifestyle interventions.

Conclusion: Current strategies focus largely on secondary prevention, but many more cardiovascular events would be prevented by meeting the government’s public health and primary prevention targets than targeting people at high risk or those with established heart disease.


Abbreviations: AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CHD, coronary heart disease; NEPP, number of events prevented in your population; NSF, National Service Framework; PAR, population attributable risk; PIM, population impact measure; RR, relative risk; RRR, relative risk reduction

Keywords: coronary heart disease; population impact measures; primary prevention; secondary prevention; lifestyle interventions; government policy




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
N. Steel, M. Bachmann, S. Maisey, P. Shekelle, E. Breeze, M. Marmot, and D. Melzer
Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England
BMJ, August 13, 2008; 337(aug13_2): a957 - a957.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br Med BullHome page
U. Chauhan
Cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care
Br. Med. Bull., March 5, 2007; (2007) ldm002v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.