Prescription de statines en prévention primaire: quel score de risque cardiovasculaire faut-il utiliser en Suisse? [Statin prescription in primary prevention: which cardiovascular risk score should be used in Switzerland?]

La prévention primaire des maladies cardiovasculaires par les médecins s'effectue par une prise en charge individualisée des facteurs de risque. L'indication à un traitement par statines se base sur une estimation du risque de survenue d'une maladie cardiovasculaire et sur le taux de LDL-cholestérol. Trois scores de risque sont couramment utilisés: le score PROCAM, le score Framingham, et le SCORE européen. En Suisse, le Groupe Suisse Lipides et Athérosclérose (GSLA) recommande en première instance l'utilisation du score PROCAM avec une adaptation du niveau de risque pour la Suisse. Une enquête a aussi montré que c'est le score le plus utilisé en Suisse. Dans cet article, les particularités de ces scores et leurs applications pratiques en ce qui concerne la prescription de statines en prévention primaire sont discutées. Les conséquences et les bénéfices potentiels de l'application de ces scores en Suisse sont également abordés. [Abstract] Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease by physicians is achieved by management of individual risk factors. The eligibility for treatment with statins is based on both an estimate of the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and the LDL-cholesterol. Three risk scores are commonly used : the PROCAM score, the Framingham score, and the European score. In Switzerland, the Swiss Group Lipids and Atherosclerosis (GSLA) recommends to use the PROCAM score with an adjustment of the level of risk for Switzerland. A survey also showed that PROCAM is the most used in Switzerland. In this article, the differences of these scores and their practical applications regarding the prescription of statins in primary prevention are discussed. The consequences and potential benefits of applying these scores in Switzerland are also discussed.

Relationship between cigarette smoking and abdominal obesity

BACKGROUND: Although smokers tend to have a lower body-mass index (BMI) than non-smokers, smoking may affect body fat (BF) distribution. Some studies have assessed the association between smoking, BMI and waist circumference (WC), but, to our knowledge, no population-based studies assessed the relation between smoking and BF composition. We assessed the association between amount of cigarette smoking, BMI, WC and BF composition. METHODS: Data was analysed from a cross-sectional population-based study including 6187 Caucasians aged 32-76 and living in Switzerland. Height, weight and WC were measured. BF, expressed in percent of total body weight, was measured by electrical bioimpedance. Obesity was defined as a BMI>=30 kg/m2 and normal weight as a BMI<25 kg/m2. Abdominal obesity was defined as a WC>=102 cm for men and >=88 cm for women and normal WC as <94 cm for men and <80 cm for women. In men, excess BF was defined as %BF >=28.1, 28.7, 30.6 and 32.6 for age groups 32-44, 45-54, 55-64 and 65-76, respectively; the corresponding values for women were 35.9, 36.5, 40.5 and 44.4. Cigarette smoking was assessed using a self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: 29.3% of men and 25.0% of women were smokers. Prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, and excess of BF was 16.9% and 26.6% and 14.2% in men and 15.0%, 33.0% and 27.5% in women, respectively. Smokers had lower age-adjusted mean BMI, WC and percent of BF compared to non-smokers. However, among smokers,mean age-adjusted BMI,WC and BF increased with the number of cigarettes smoked per day: among light (1-10 cig/day), moderate (11-20) and heavy smokers (>20), mean +/-SE %BF was 22.4 +/−0.3, 23.1+/−0.3 and 23.5+/−0.4 for men, and 31.9+/−0.3, 32.6+/−0.3 and 32.9+/−0.4 for women, respectively. Mean WC was 92.9+/−0.6, 94.0+/−0.5 and 96.0+/−0.6 cm for men, and 80.2+/−0.5, 81.3+/−0.5 and 83.3+/−0.7 for women, respectively. Mean BMI was 25.7+/−0.2, 26.0+/−0.2, and 26.1+/−0.2 kg/m2 for men; and 23.6+/−0.2, 24.0+/−0.2 and 24.1+/−0.3 for women, respectively. Compared with light smokers, the age-adjusted odds ratio (95% Confidence Interval) for excess of BF was 1.04 (0.58 to 1.85) formoderatesmokers and 1.06 (0.57 to 1.99) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend = 0.9), and 1.35 (0.92 to 1.99) and 2.26 (1.38 to 3.72), respectively, in women (p-trend = 0.04). Odds ratio for abdominal obesity vs. normal WC was 1.32 (0.81 to 2.15) for moderate smokers and 1.95 (1.16 to 3.27) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend < 0.01), and 1.15 (0.79 to 1.69) and 2.36 (1.41 to 3.93) in women (p-trend = 0.03). Odds ratio for obesity vs. normal weight was 1.35 (0.76 to 2.41) for moderate smokers and 1.33 (0.71 to 2.49) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend = 0.9) and 0.78 (0.45 to 1.35) and 1.44 (0.73 to 2.85), in women (p-trend = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: WC and BF were positively and dose-dependently associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day in women, whereas onlyWC was dose dependently and significantly associated with the amount of cigarettes smoked per day in men. This suggests that heavy smokers, especially women, are more likely to have an excess of BF and to accumulate BF in the abdomen compared to lighter smokers.