Comparison of coronary calcium screening versus broad statin therapy for patients at intermediate cardiovascular risk

Abstract

Net reclassification has become widely accepted as a method to demonstrate whether new diagnostic technologies add significantly to the discrimination of risk. However, more accurate categorization of risk does not necessarily result in a better clinical outcome. This study examined whether coronary artery calcium, a technology that improves net reclassification in patients at intermediate risk for cardiovascular events, is superior to a strategy that calls for broader intervention with statin therapy in these patients. To do so, the clinical impact and costs of 2 intervention regimens on outcome in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) were calculated based on the known efficacy of statins. Intervention 1 involved treatment of all subjects at conventional intermediate risk with moderate-dose stain, whereas intervention 2 involved moderate- and high-dose statin therapy, respectively, of those remaining at intermediate risk and those reassigned to high risk after reclassification by coronary artery calcium. The 2 strategies would decrease clinical events by 23% and would produce net savings. However, these would be greater with the broad statin prevention strategy than with the coronary calcium reclassification strategy ($732,152 vs $288,336, respectively). In conclusion, even in the short term, the broad statin prevention strategy would be at least as effective in decreasing clinical events but with greater net savings than a prevention strategy using coronary calcium screening.