Comparison of cardiovascular risk calculation tools in pharmacy practice

Nicole D. White, Thomas L. Lenz, Maryann Z. Skrabal, Michele A. Faulkner, Jessica J. Skradski, Leslie A. Southard, Derek E. Popken

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To examine the use of various cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation calculators in pharmacy practice. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Midwestern university worksite from August 2008 through May 2012. Participants: University employees with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Intervention: Risk estimation calculators were applied to data from a pharmacist- run chronic disease management program. Main outcome measure: Difference in estimated CVD risk from multiple estimation calculators. Results: At baseline and 12 months, non-lab-based tools reported significantly higher 10-year CVD risk percentages compared with lab-based tools among the same cohort of patients (10.63% vs. 8.71% at baseline, P <0.001; 9.34% vs. 7.31% at 12 months, P <0.001). In addition, the electronic version of 10-year CVD risk reported significantly higher values than the paper version when applied to the same patient cohort (7.31% vs. 6.60% at 12 months, P = 0.018). Conclusion: CVD risk estimation tools report significantly different values and are not interchangeable. Pharmacists using non-lab-based tools should expect significantly higher risk estimates than estimates derived from lab-based tools and therefore should use the same version of the estimation tool over the long term.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)408-413
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
Volume53
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

Cardiovascular Diseases
Pharmacists
Medical problems
Disease Management
Dyslipidemias
Workplace
Longitudinal Studies
Chronic Disease
Cohort Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Personnel
Hypertension

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacy
  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (nursing)

Cite this

Comparison of cardiovascular risk calculation tools in pharmacy practice. / White, Nicole D.; Lenz, Thomas L.; Skrabal, Maryann Z.; Faulkner, Michele A.; Skradski, Jessica J.; Southard, Leslie A.; Popken, Derek E.

In: Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA, Vol. 53, No. 4, 07.2013, p. 408-413.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

White, Nicole D. ; Lenz, Thomas L. ; Skrabal, Maryann Z. ; Faulkner, Michele A. ; Skradski, Jessica J. ; Southard, Leslie A. ; Popken, Derek E. / Comparison of cardiovascular risk calculation tools in pharmacy practice. In: Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA. 2013 ; Vol. 53, No. 4. pp. 408-413.
@article{f5dbbd443ef84081a9665484c9a5d673,
title = "Comparison of cardiovascular risk calculation tools in pharmacy practice",
abstract = "Objective: To examine the use of various cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation calculators in pharmacy practice. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Midwestern university worksite from August 2008 through May 2012. Participants: University employees with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Intervention: Risk estimation calculators were applied to data from a pharmacist- run chronic disease management program. Main outcome measure: Difference in estimated CVD risk from multiple estimation calculators. Results: At baseline and 12 months, non-lab-based tools reported significantly higher 10-year CVD risk percentages compared with lab-based tools among the same cohort of patients (10.63{\%} vs. 8.71{\%} at baseline, P <0.001; 9.34{\%} vs. 7.31{\%} at 12 months, P <0.001). In addition, the electronic version of 10-year CVD risk reported significantly higher values than the paper version when applied to the same patient cohort (7.31{\%} vs. 6.60{\%} at 12 months, P = 0.018). Conclusion: CVD risk estimation tools report significantly different values and are not interchangeable. Pharmacists using non-lab-based tools should expect significantly higher risk estimates than estimates derived from lab-based tools and therefore should use the same version of the estimation tool over the long term.",
author = "White, {Nicole D.} and Lenz, {Thomas L.} and Skrabal, {Maryann Z.} and Faulkner, {Michele A.} and Skradski, {Jessica J.} and Southard, {Leslie A.} and Popken, {Derek E.}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12181",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "408--413",
journal = "Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA",
issn = "1544-3191",
publisher = "American Pharmacists Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of cardiovascular risk calculation tools in pharmacy practice

AU - White, Nicole D.

AU - Lenz, Thomas L.

AU - Skrabal, Maryann Z.

AU - Faulkner, Michele A.

AU - Skradski, Jessica J.

AU - Southard, Leslie A.

AU - Popken, Derek E.

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - Objective: To examine the use of various cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation calculators in pharmacy practice. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Midwestern university worksite from August 2008 through May 2012. Participants: University employees with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Intervention: Risk estimation calculators were applied to data from a pharmacist- run chronic disease management program. Main outcome measure: Difference in estimated CVD risk from multiple estimation calculators. Results: At baseline and 12 months, non-lab-based tools reported significantly higher 10-year CVD risk percentages compared with lab-based tools among the same cohort of patients (10.63% vs. 8.71% at baseline, P <0.001; 9.34% vs. 7.31% at 12 months, P <0.001). In addition, the electronic version of 10-year CVD risk reported significantly higher values than the paper version when applied to the same patient cohort (7.31% vs. 6.60% at 12 months, P = 0.018). Conclusion: CVD risk estimation tools report significantly different values and are not interchangeable. Pharmacists using non-lab-based tools should expect significantly higher risk estimates than estimates derived from lab-based tools and therefore should use the same version of the estimation tool over the long term.

AB - Objective: To examine the use of various cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation calculators in pharmacy practice. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Midwestern university worksite from August 2008 through May 2012. Participants: University employees with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Intervention: Risk estimation calculators were applied to data from a pharmacist- run chronic disease management program. Main outcome measure: Difference in estimated CVD risk from multiple estimation calculators. Results: At baseline and 12 months, non-lab-based tools reported significantly higher 10-year CVD risk percentages compared with lab-based tools among the same cohort of patients (10.63% vs. 8.71% at baseline, P <0.001; 9.34% vs. 7.31% at 12 months, P <0.001). In addition, the electronic version of 10-year CVD risk reported significantly higher values than the paper version when applied to the same patient cohort (7.31% vs. 6.60% at 12 months, P = 0.018). Conclusion: CVD risk estimation tools report significantly different values and are not interchangeable. Pharmacists using non-lab-based tools should expect significantly higher risk estimates than estimates derived from lab-based tools and therefore should use the same version of the estimation tool over the long term.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887587636&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887587636&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12181

DO - 10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12181

M3 - Article

C2 - 23892814

AN - SCOPUS:84887587636

VL - 53

SP - 408

EP - 413

JO - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

JF - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

SN - 1544-3191

IS - 4

ER -