Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Controversy

Rebuttal

Douglas G. Manuel, Peter Tanuseputro, Cameron A. Mustard, Susan E. Schultz, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Sten Ardal, David A. Alter and Andreas Laupacis
CMAJ April 12, 2005 172 (8) 1037; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1041748
Douglas G. Manuel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Tanuseputro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cameron A. Mustard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Schultz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geoffrey M. Anderson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sten Ardal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David A. Alter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Laupacis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We very much agree with the guidelines' stated approach of assessing coronary artery disease (CAD) risk, as opposed to relying solely on lipid levels. However, Genest and his colleagues did not do a good job of estimating the individual and population impact of their guidelines.1 The 2003 guidelines contain no information on the benefit of nonpharmacological interventions and no estimates on the absolute benefit of statins or other drugs. In their response they have provided no data to refute our position that, compared with the 2000 guidelines, the 2003 guidelines will expand statin treatment recommendations to hundreds of thousands more people at relatively low risk and increase expenditures on statins by hundreds of millions of dollars, resulting in only small additional reductions in the number of CAD-related deaths. At the same time, the guidelines inappropriately disregard 193 000 high-risk people who potentially would have a large benefit from statins. The guidelines are both more costly and less effective than the New Zealand guidelines.2

Instead, Genest and colleagues3 quibble about the data and methods we used (the same data and methods that 3 of the authors have used themselves to assess screening recommendations4), quibbles that in no way change the overall results of the analysis. Most of their comments have already been addressed in the online appendix (www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/8/1027/DC1).

Their only substantive comment relates to the target threshold for the low-risk group. Their “clearly stated” low-density lipoprotein cutoff point for the very-low risk group can be found in a small-print footnote in 1 table of the guidelines. It states that “treatment may be deferred” for people with a 10-year baseline risk of cardiovascular disease less than 5% and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels less than 5.0 mmol/L. Modifying our results to reflect no statin treatment in this group would result in a 6-fold instead of a 10-fold increase in the number of very-low-risk and low-risk people for whom statins are recommended (increasing from 61 000 people in the 2000 guidelines to 344 000 people in the 2003 guidelines).

Authors of guidelines for cardiovascular risk reduction must consider the population-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of their recommendations for both pharmacological and other interventions. To do otherwise will lead to poor public policy and patient outcomes.

𝛃 See related articles pages 1027 and 1033

Footnotes

  • Contributors: Douglas Manuel prepared the rebuttal. All of the authors provided comments and approved the final version.

    Acknowledgements: We thank Jenny Lim for her contribution to the additional analysis and assistance in preparing the manuscript.

    Douglas Manuel is a Career Scientist with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. David Alter holds a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Cameron Mustard held an Investigator Award from 1999 to 2003, and Andreas Laupacis holds a Senior Scientist Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Support for this project was received from the Canadian Population Health Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions with which they are affiliated.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Genest J, Frohlich J, Fodor G, McPherson R (the Working Group on Hypercholesterolemia and Other Dyslipidemias). Recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia and the prevention of cardiovascular disease: summary of the 2003 update. CMAJ 2003;169(9):921-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    New Zealand Guidelines Group. The assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. December 2003. Wellington, New Zealand. Available: www.nzgg.org.nz/index.cfm?fuseaction=fuseaction_10&fusesubaction=docs&documentID=22 (accessed 09 Mar 05).
  3. 3.↵
    Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, Fodor G. The analysis by Manuel and colleagues creates controversy with headlines, not data. CMAJ 2005;172(8):1033-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Grover SA, Dorais M, Paradis G, Fodor JG, Frohlich JJ, McPherson R, et al. Lipid screening to prevent coronary artery disease: a quantitative evaluation of evolving guidelines. CMAJ 2000;163(10):1263-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 172 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 172, Issue 8
12 Apr 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter (1133 - 1140)

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Rebuttal
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Rebuttal
Douglas G. Manuel, Peter Tanuseputro, Cameron A. Mustard, Susan E. Schultz, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Sten Ardal, David A. Alter, Andreas Laupacis
CMAJ Apr 2005, 172 (8) 1037; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1041748

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Rebuttal
Douglas G. Manuel, Peter Tanuseputro, Cameron A. Mustard, Susan E. Schultz, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Sten Ardal, David A. Alter, Andreas Laupacis
CMAJ Apr 2005, 172 (8) 1037; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1041748
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The 2003 Canadian recommendations for dyslipidemia management: Revisions are needed
  • The analysis by Manuel and colleagues creates controversy with headlines, not data
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Is Clostridium difficile infection still a problem for hospitals?
  • Questioning the benefits of statins
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The 2003 Canadian recommendations for dyslipidemia management: Revisions are needed
  • The analysis by Manuel and colleagues creates controversy with headlines, not data
Show more Controversy

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Cardiovascular medicine

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire