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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 408-413 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jul 2013 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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
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 -