Issue: 2015 > August > editorial

Cardiovascular disease prevention: Mind the gap…

M. van Hoek
Full textPDF

Full text

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still one of the leading causes of reduced quality of life, disability and death. This is unfortunate, as we know that much of CVD morbidity and mortality can be avoided by application of primary and secondary prevention measures. Evidence-based guidelines for prevention of CVD have been developed worldwide. However, to accomplish their envisioned effect, adherence to the guidelines is of utmost importance. 
Lifestyle, smoking, dyslipidaemia, hypertension and hyperglycaemia are modifiable risk factors for CVD. In the past decades, significant improvement has been made in the treatment and prevention of CVD, already leading to more favourable health outcomes.1,2 Nonetheless, past surveys in several countries, including the Netherlands, have shown that CVD prevention guidelines are incompletely applied.3-7 The lack of implementation of proven effective strategies is an ‘evidence-practice gap’.8 More specifically, this is an ‘under-use evidence-practice gap’. An ‘under-use evidence-practice gap’ leads to much smaller health benefits compared with what could potentially be achieved if the guideline was optimally deployed.

In this issue of the Netherlands Journal of Medicine, Balder et al. describe a clear ‘under-use evidence-practice gap’ in the Netherlands.9 They investigated the reported use of lipid-lowering drugs as a proxy of the adherence to the Dutch National guidelines for prevention and treatment of CVD. They find astonishingly low numbers of people eligible for treatment that are actually using lipid-lowering drugs (23% for primary prevention and 69% for secondary prevention). Looking further at the data, people being treated have an average LDL-cholesterol level of 2.6 mmol/l and 2.4 mmol/l for primary and secondary prevention, respectively. This means that part of the treated group will not have reached the treatment goal of LDL-cholesterol <2.6 mmol/l, which makes the results even more disappointing with regards to guideline adherence. 

It has been extensively shown that LDL-cholesterol lowering by only 1 mmol/l reduces major vascular events by about 20%, major coronary events by about 25%, coronary revascularisations by about 25%, and ischaemic stroke by just under 20%, These findings apply to both men and women and to both primary and secondary prevention.10,11 Moreover, lipid-lowering interventions are cost-effective and may improve quality of life, with low rates of adverse events. Considering these numbers, there should be no doubt that lipid lowering is useful. And this leads us to the question why guideline adherence is as poor as it is. Balder et al. identify some risk factors for not being treated according to the guideline, for example female gender in secondary prevention. Still, these risk factors do not fully clarify why the guideline is not adequately implemented. Are caretakers not adhering because of unawareness of their risk and risk factors? Do they experience side effects or other objections to the therapy? Are caregivers not adhering by not (correctly) assessing the risk in their patients? Are they not prescribing medication when indicated, and if so, why not? Or is our healthcare system not designed in a way that allows the guidelines to be implemented in the most effective way? These and many other questions should be answered to come up with strategies to improve the percentage of patients receiving the treatment they deserve.

Taken together, even though we do not know the exact reasons for non-adherence to the guidelines, the study by Balder et al. gives us a strong indication that a large number of people in the Netherlands are not receiving primary and secondary prevention measures for lipid lowering, while they should. Gaining a better understanding of the underlying causes and motivations for non-adherence to the guidelines is critical for designing effective interventions to improve public and physician awareness and adherence. 


  1. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, et al. Explaining the decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980-2000. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2388-98. 
  2. Kesteloot H. Evolution of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality rates in the age class of 85 years and above. Period 1950-2000. Acta Cardiol. 2007;62:113-8. 
  3. Gamboa CM, Safford MM, Levitan EB, et al. Statin underuse and low prevalence of LDL-C control among U.S. adults at high risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Med Sci. 2014;348:108-14. 
  4. Majumdar SR, Gurwitz JH, Soumerai SB. Undertreatment of hyperlipidemia in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:711-7. 
  5. Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Verschuren WM, Klungel OH, et al. Undertreatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a population-based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;55:389-97. 
  6. Tonstad S, Rosvold EO, Furu K, Skurtveit S. Undertreatment and overtreatment with statins: the Oslo Health Study 2000-2001. J Intern Med. 2004;255:494-502. 
  7. Eapen ZJ, Liang L, Shubrook JH, et al. Current quality of cardiovascular prevention for Million Hearts: an analysis of 147,038 outpatients from The Guideline Advantage. Am Heart J. 2014;168:398-404. 
  8. Nieuwlaat R, Schwalm JD, Khatib R, Yusuf S. Why are we failing to implement effective therapies in cardiovascular disease? Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1262-9. 
  9. Balder JW, Scholtens S, de Vries JK, et al. Adherence to guidelines to prevent cardiovascular diseases: The LifeLines cohort study. Neth J Med. 2015;73:316-23. 
  10. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists C, Fulcher J, O'Connell R, et al. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2015:385:1397-405. 
  11. Taylor F, Huffman MD, Macedo AF, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD004816.