This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vasan, R. S. Articles by D’Agostino, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vasan, R. S. Articles by D’Agostino, R. B., Sr Related Collections Risk Factors Chronic ischemic heart disease Epidemiology Related Article

(Circulation. 2005;111:542-545.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Age and Time Need Not and Should Not Be Eliminated From the Coronary Risk Prediction Models

Ramachandran S. Vasan, MD; Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr, PhD

From the Framingham Heart Study (R.S.V., R.B.D.), Framingham, Mass; the Department of Mathematics (R.B.D.), Boston University, Boston, Mass; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Cardiology Section (R.S.V.), Boston University School of Medicine, Boston.

Correspondence to Ramachandran S. Vasan, MD, The Framingham Heart Study, 73 Mt Wayte Ave, Framingham, MA 01702-5803. E-mail vasan@bu.edu

Key Words: Editorials • coronary disease • risk factors • prevention • prognosis

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management are 3 fundamental steps in the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). Consequently, national and international guidelines^1–4 have been formulated to assist clinicians in providing standardized care for treating coronary risk factors. These guidelines are consistent with the best available scientific evidence on risks of developing CHD and potential strategies to reduce those risks via nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions. One of the critical concepts on which contemporary guidelines are founded is the notion that the choice and intensity of an intervention strategy should in part be based on the underlying risk—ie, the absolute risk of experiencing a CHD event during a short-term period. This is typically estimated as the 10-year risk of CHD for a man or a woman of a specific age.^1,3,4 In this issue of Circulation, Ridker and Cook⁵ present an argument to eliminate both the age and the time dependency of CHD risk prediction algorithms. On the basis of the objectives of current guidelines and risk prediction algorithms, we disagree with the suggestion made by Ridker and Cook. We submit that not only is removal of age and time from the risk prediction equations not necessary, but, to the contrary, such removal may be inappropriate. Furthermore, as we demonstrate below, the objectives desired by Ridker and Cook are already available with the existing prediction algorithms and often have been incorporated into the standard use of the current guidelines.

See p 657

Before we proceed, it would . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Should Age and Time Be Eliminated From Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models?: Rationale for the Creation of a New National Risk Detection Program

Paul M Ridker and Nancy Cook
Circulation 2005 111: 657-658. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Steinberg, C. K. Glass, and J. L. Witztum Evidence Mandating Earlier and More Aggressive Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia Circulation, August 5, 2008; 118(6): 672 - 677. [Full Text] [PDF]