<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_458"
                     title="Calcium Scoring Misses 20% of CAD Cases (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.014"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/tb/18387?impressionId=1265798805768"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Contrary to guidelines, the absence of coronary artery calcium doesn&apos;t rule out coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients, researchers found in a new study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a multicenter clinical trial, 19% of patients with a coronary calcium score of 0 had stenosis of at least 50% in one or more coronary artery segments, according to Carlos E. Rochitte, MD, of the University of S&amp;#227;o Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Likewise, 20% of vessels seen to be totally occluded on revascularization had no calcium on scans, they reported in the Feb. 16 issue of the &lt;em&gt; Journal of the American College of Cardiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The absence of coronary calcification should not be used as a gatekeeper and should not prevent a symptomatic patient from undergoing angiography,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently, American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines suggest that excluding measurable coronary calcium could serve as an effective filter for sending patients on to invasive testing or admitting them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One systematic review of 18 studies had indicated that a zero calcium score had a negative predictive value of 93% for stenosis and a positive predictive value of 68% in symptomatic patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in Rochitte&apos;s trial  --  CORE64 (Coronary Evaluation Using Multi-Detector Spiral Computed Tomography Angiography Using 64 Detectors)  --  the negative predictive value of a coronary calcium score of 0 was 68%, while the positive predictive value was 81%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall sensitivity to predict the absence of significant (at least 50%) stenosis was 45%, while specificity was 91%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This apparent lack of predictive value of a calcium scan should be enough to give a clinician pause,&quot; Rita F. Redberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, wrote in an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whatever the reason for the discrepancy, neither the trial nor the review provided any information on how coronary calcium scans add incrementally to traditional predictors of coronary artery disease, such as clinical assessment and stress testing, she said. Nor would she rule out their use entirely for patients with chest pain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Given the significant &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/12732&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/12732&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;radiation risks&lt;/a&gt; of coronary artery calcium scans, however, clinicians must use extreme caution when ordering such scans,&quot; Redberg cautioned.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The prospective &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/11927&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/11927&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;CORE64 study&lt;/a&gt; was originally designed to compare diagnostic performance of CT and invasive angiography in symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease. But it also included a coronary calcium scan up to 30 days prior to conventional angiography.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 291 patients included in the calcium score analysis (73% male, mean age 59.3), 56% had at least 50% coronary stenosis by conventional angiography and 45% had at least 70% stenosis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Calcium score only weakly correlated with the highest degree of coronary stenosis found in a patient. Its ability to predict presence of significant lesions was &quot;moderate&quot; (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.77, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A non-zero score was associated with 8.1-fold likelihood of having at least 50% coronary stenosis (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, diabetes, race, and hospitalization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the 100 patients who went on to revascularization within 30 days of angiography, 13% had a coronary calcium score of 0, 25% had a score of 1 to 10, and 44% had a score over 10 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001 for trend).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fact that significant coronary artery disease occurred in the absence of calcification in almost 20% of patients should not be surprising, since coronary calcification is thought to occur late in the atherosclerotic process, while obstruction can occur earlier, Redberg asserted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also cautioned that the results would not apply to asymptomatic patients with intermediate risk for events, a group in which a score of 0 has been consistently shown to indicate low risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by grants from Toshiba Medical Systems, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rochitte reported no conflicts of interest. Co-authors reported financial relationships with Toshiba Medical Systems, Bayer, Schering, GE Healthcare, Bracco, Bristol-Myers Squibb, sanofi-aventis, and Vital Images.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Redberg provided no information on conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_449"
                     title="FDA Okays Statin for Primary Prevention"
                     score="0.014"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/tb/18380?impressionId=1265798805768"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The FDA has approved rosuvastatin (Crestor) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, making it the first statin to receive this indication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new labeling, recommended by an FDA advisory panel late last year, also marks the first time that a drug label will include an indication based on the biomarker highly-sensitive C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new indication would be for men 50 or older and women 60 or older who have fasting LDL of less than 130 mg/dL, a highly-sensitive CRP of 2.0 mg/L or greater, triglycerides of less than 500 mg/dL, and no prior history of heart attack or stroke, or coronary heart disease risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The basis for the new labeling was the JUPITER trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 17,802 men and women with a mean age of 66 and no history of atherosclerosis. All participants had LDL of less than 130 mg/dL and a highly-sensitive C-reactive protein concentration of 2 mg/L or higher.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomized to 20 mg of rosuvastatin for 1.9 years, which reduced median LDL cholesterol to 55 mg/dL, down from a median of 108 mg/dL at baseline. The corresponding relative reduction in the rate of MI, stroke, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death was 44% (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.00001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number needed to treat to avoid one cardiovascular event was 25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those results, according to Melvyn Rubenfire, MD, of the University of Michigan, were a &quot;home run for JUPITER,&quot; but it is not clear whether the results would be the same with another statin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And there were some risks associated with rosuvastatin, including 13 deaths due to gastrointestinal disorders in the rosuvastatin arm, and 18 patients reported experiencing a &quot;confused state&quot; while taking the drug.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most troubling adverse event, however, was an uptick in investigator-reported, new onset diabetes mellitus in the treatment arm, 2.8% versus 2.5%, for a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.53, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rosuvastatin in marketed by AstraZeneca, which also sponsored the JUPITER trial.&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_352"
                     title="ICAO: Future Chronic Disease Risk Goes Beyond BMI (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/18233?impressionId=1265798805768"
                     
      When it comes to predicting chronic disease, body mass index doesn&apos;t tell the whole story, according to a population-based study that found elevated risk with obesity and other metabolic risk factors independently.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically-healthy obese people tended toward being at least twice as likely to develop multiple metabolic risk factors and diabetes as healthy, normal weight individuals over the subsequent 3.5 years of a study led by Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide, Australia.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, normal weight individuals with metabolic risk factors  --  a group the researchers called &quot;metabolically obese&quot;  --  were at greater risk, she told attendees at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong, a conference sponsored by the International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Overall, just 4.1% of the 3,743 adults in the population-based, North West Adelaide Health Study were in the normal body mass index range at baseline but had at least two of the following metabolic risk factors:&lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Triglyceride levels of 1.7 mmol/L or greater&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;HDL cholesterol under 1.0mmol/L for men or 1.3 mmol/L for women&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Blood pressure of 130/85 mm Hg or higher&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A fasting plasma glucose of at least 5.6mmol/L or self-reported diabetes&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Treatment for any of these disorders &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although free of cardiovascular disease when they entered the study through a random population sample of the northwest region of Adelaide, after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up, this group was 2.48 times at risk of incident cardiovascular disease or stroke events (95% CI 1.1 to 5.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals, those with metabolic risk factors tended to be&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;3.27 times as likely to develop diabetes (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Identifying these individuals for prevention efforts may require less emphasis on BMI and increased surveillance of central obesity in primary care, the researchers told the congress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The problem with BMI is it doesn&apos;t tell you where the fat is,&quot; Appleton added in an interview. &quot;Visceral fat is really bad for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Obese individuals without multiple metabolic risk factors at baseline comprised a larger group (12.1%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were more likely to be middle age, live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, have smoked at some point, and get less exercise than their metabolically similar, but slimmer peers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the subsequent 3.5 years, they were 2.82 times more likely to develop more than one metabolic risk factor than metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals (95% CI 2.0 to 4.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The metabolically-normal obese also tended to be 2.36 times more likely to develop diabetes (95% CI 0.8 to 7.1). On the other hand, their risk of cardiovascular disease wasn&apos;t elevated, &quot;which likely related to the younger age of that group,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, abdominal obesity as determined by a waist circumference of 80 cm and over for men or 95 cm and greater for women was 6.1 times more likely among metabolically healthy individuals if their BMI was in the obese versus normal range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But those who were in the normal BMI range were 2.2-fold more likely to be overweight or obese according to waist circumference if they had metabolic risk factors, which was statistically significant as well and likely contributed to the health risks they faced over the short-term future, Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maintenance of metabolic health in the obese population was more likely for younger individuals (OR 2.83 for age 40 or younger, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.6) and those who were at least moderately physically active (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton noted that these findings generally fit with data from the U.S. National Health Assessment Survey and Examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether patients have abdominal obesity, BMI obesity, or other metabolic risk factors, the solution is likely similar  --  improved diet and exercise, she said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Department of Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appleton reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_315"
                     title="A Few Extra Pounds May Benefit Older People (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265798805768"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A little excess weight after age 70 could do the body some good, according to results of a study involving 9,000 older patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overweight participants in the cohort study had the lowest 10-year mortality. Normal-weight and obese participants ages 70 to 75 had a similar and slightly higher risk of death, Leon Flicker, PhD, of the Western Australian Center for Health and Aging in Perth, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to evidence suggesting that being overweight in older age is not such a bad thing and might even be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results lend further credence to claims that the body mass index [BMI] thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people,&quot; the researchers concluded in an article in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Geriatrics Society&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors also found that a sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for older women but did not affect survival of older men.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The World Health Organization has established four BMI thresholds to characterize body weight: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;lt;18.5 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, underweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;18.5 to 24.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, normal weight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;25 to 29.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, overweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;#8805;30 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, obese&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that the thresholds were derived primarily from studies of younger and middle-age adults. Whether the cut points for overweight and obese are appropriate for older individuals has remained unclear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis showed no increased mortality risk associated with a BMI in the overweight range for older people (&lt;em&gt;Arch Intern Med&lt;/em&gt; 2001; 161: 1194-1203, &lt;em&gt;Obesity Rev&lt;/em&gt; 2007; 8: 41-59). However, methodologic differences complicated the comparison of different studies, Flicker and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they sought to address some of the uncertainty by analyzing data from two large Australian cohort studies involving more than 9,000 individuals ages 70 to 75 (4,677 men, 4,563 women).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The principal objectives were to determine the BMI threshold associated with the lowest mortality in older people and to determine whether the relationship between BMI and mortality differed between men and women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data for the analysis came from self-reported measures of height and weight, which the authors used to calculate BMI for the study participants. Participants also provided demographic, lifestyle, and health information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the WHO criteria for BMI, the authors found that 1.3% of men and 3.1% of women were underweight; 43.5% of men and 50.3% of women were normal weight; 44.3% of men and 33.5% of women were overweight; and 11% of men and 13.1% of women were obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During 10 years of follow-up, overweight study participants had a 13% lower risk of death compared with normal-weight participants (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94). Obese participants had a mortality risk similar to that of normal-weight participants (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Self-reported sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for women across all BMI categories (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.41). In contrast, sedentary lifestyle increased the mortality risk for men by 28% (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.44).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Separate analyses involving common causes of death, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, showed similar relationships between BMI and mortality risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Even after removing the effects of early mortality, those who were overweight were still at lowest risk, a finding consistent with the observation that weight loss in older age groups is associated with greater mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overweight older people are not at greater mortality risk, and there is little evidence that dieting in this age group confers any benefit,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no relevant disclosures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_189"
                     title="Tailoring Trumps Targeting for Cholesterol Control (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.002"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Dyslipidemia/tb/18023?impressionId=1265798805768"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Lipid control is more than a simple matter of &quot;knowing your numbers,&quot; according to a computer model that found tailoring statin therapy to fit an individual&apos;s five-year risk of heart attack or stroke is a better prevention strategy than treating to preset goals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the model, patients who whose five-year coronary artery disease risk was 5% to 15% received 40 mg of simvastatin (Zocor), while those whose risk was greater were given 40 mg of atorvastatin (Lipitor).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In every scenario, the tailored approach was preferable, Rodney A. Hayward, MD, of the University of Michigan and the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and colleagues wrote in the Jan. 19 &lt;em&gt;Annals of Internal Medicine.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While treating-to-target is appealingly simple, that simplicity may be its main limitation, the researchers argued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Treating to a single target means that one risk factor receives &quot;dramatically more weight than all other predictors of treatment benefit, resulting in other highly relevant information being either ignored or underweighted,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That approach, tailoring treatment to reflect multiple risk factors rather than treating-to-target, is an &quot;interesting&quot; one, according to Christopher Cannon, MD, of Brigham and Women&apos;s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But Cannon, principal investigator of a number of statin trials, said the idea may be a little too late to impact clinical practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The guidelines won&apos;t shift to this approach any time soon, and in two years, atorvastatin will be generic, so all patients can inexpensively be treated with more intensive therapy (which is better for everyone at all risk levels),&quot; Cannon wrote in an e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although intensive therapy may be better as a rule, he conceded, it&apos;s less cost-effective when an expensive drug is used. When atorvastatin becomes available as a generic, he wrote, for &quot;$4 a month at Walmart it is simply cheaper  --  and of course better  --  to treat everyone with atorvastatin 80 mg.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming a population of Americans ages 30 to 75 with no history of myocardial infarction, the authors developed three treatment models: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Standard National Cholesterol Education Program III (NCEP) treat-to-target recommendation, which requires treatment to an LDL target of less than 190 mg/dL for low-risk individuals, less than 160 mg/dL for moderate-risk, and less than 130 mg/dL for high-risk individuals&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Intensive NCEP III treat-to-target approach, with targets of less than 100 mg/dL for high-risk individuals&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;The tailored model, with 40 mg of simvastatin for patients who whose five-year coronary artery disease risk was 5% to 15% and 40 mg of atorvastatin (Lipitor) for higher-risk patients&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(In both NCEP III strategies statins would be used in a stepwise fashion  --  20 mg simvastatin, 40 mg simvastatin, 40 mg atorvastatin, and, finally, 80 mg atorvastatin  --  to achieve targets).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using standard NCEP III treat-to-target recommendations, &quot;37.9 million U.S. persons should receive statins, of which 7.9 million should receive high dose-potency therapy (atorvastatin 40 to 80 mg),&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with no treatment, the standard strategy would save an estimated 48 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per 1,000 Americans treated for five years, or a total of 1.83 million total QALYs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The intensive NCEP III treat-to-target recommendations would &quot;recommend that 53.4 million U.S. persons receive statins&quot; and would save about 570,000 more QALYs than the standard treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the computer model, this strategy prevented &quot;about 720,000 more nonfatal CAD events and 30,000 more deaths&quot; than the standard treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Tailored treatment, by contrast, would require that about the same number of people receive a statin  --  53 million. But only 13.3 million would require high-dose statin therapy, versus roughly 18 million who would be given high-dose statin therapy using the intensive NCEP III strategy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even so, the tailored approach would save 520,000 more QALYs than the intensive treatment approach, the authors found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The tailored treatment approach was superior to both NCEP III approaches, resulting in both more CAD morbidity and mortality prevented in the overall population and higher treatment efficiency (greater benefit per person treated),&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted a number of limitations, including the paucity of clinical trial data on statin therapy in persons ages 75 or older.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, although the model suggested a robust benefit for tailored treatment, &quot;the absolute population-level benefit of the tailored treatment over the treat-to-target approaches are much less certain and can vary substantially on the basis of several factors, such as statin&apos;s effect on total mortality (estimates of which are less precise in the literature than estimates for nonfatal CAD events) and the level of treatment adherence that is achievable in real-world clinical practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Whether a tailored treatment approach is superior for other conditions in which treat-to-target strategies are currently recommended, such as blood pressure and glycemic control, warrants examination,&quot; they concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded in part by the Department of Veteran Affairs Health Services Research &amp;amp; Development Service&apos;s Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hayward did not report any financial disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cannon reported receiving research/grants/suport from Accumetrics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Partnership, GlaxoSmithKline, Intekrin Therapeutics, Merck, Merck/Schering-Plough Partnership, Novartis, and Takeda. He is a clinical adviser with equity in Automedics Medical Systems.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>