Pencina · The New England journal of medicine 2014 · cross-sectional population survey analysis and modeling · n=?

Application of new cholesterol guidelines to a population-based sample.

Cited 618 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey modeling and population extrapolation based on NHANES data

PubMed 24645848 · doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1315665 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

Using cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) from 2005 to 2010, the authors compared the number and risk-factor profiles of adults recommended for statin therapy under the 2013 ACC-AHA guidelines versus the older ATP III guidelines. Results were extrapolated to a target population of 115.4 million US adults aged 40 to 75 years.

What was found

The 2013 ACC-AHA guidelines increased the number of US adults receiving or eligible for statins from 43.2 million (37.5%) to 56.0 million (48.6%), an absolute increase of 12.8 million. Most of this increase (10.4 million) was among adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD). Among adults aged 60 to 75 without CVD not currently taking statins, eligibility rose from 30.4% to 87.4% for men and from 21.2% to 53.6% for women, driven predominantly by 10-year CVD risk thresholds. Newly eligible adults had higher blood pressure, markedly lower LDL cholesterol, and were disproportionately male. The new guidelines demonstrated higher sensitivity but lower specificity for predicting future cardiovascular events.

Why it matters

This study quantified the broad clinical and public health impact of the 2013 ACC-AHA cholesterol guidelines, showing they substantially expanded primary prevention statin use, particularly among older adults based on multivariable risk rather than isolated lipid targets.

Limits

The abstract does not provide the primary NHANES sample size, relying solely on extrapolated population totals. The analysis is an observational, cross-sectional modeling study rather than a prospective trial, and the abstract does not assess actual downstream clinical outcomes, adverse event rates, or the cost-effectiveness of expanding treatment to lower-specificity populations.

Cited by