Aims: Clinical guidelines often recommend treating individuals based on their cardiovascular risk. We revisit this paradigm and quantify the efficacy of three treatment strategies: (i) overall prescription, i.e. treatment to all individuals sharing the eligibility criteria of a trial; (ii) risk-stratified prescription, i.e. treatment only to those at an elevated outcome risk; and (iii) prescription based on predicted treatment responsiveness.

Methods and results: We reanalysed the PROSPER randomized controlled trial, which included individuals aged 70–82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular diseases. We conducted the derivation and internal–external validation of a model predicting treatment responsiveness. We compared with placebo (n = 2913): (i) pravastatin (n = 2891); (ii) pravastatin in the presence of previous vascular diseases and placebo in the absence thereof (n = 2925); and (iii) pravastatin in the presence of a favourable prediction of treatment response and placebo in the absence thereof (n = 2890). We found an absolute difference in primary outcome events composed of coronary death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or non-fatal stroke, per 10 000 person-years equal to: −78 events (95% CI, −144 to −12) when prescribing pravastatin to all participants; −66 events (95% CI, −114 to −18) when treating only individuals with an elevated vascular risk; and −103 events (95% CI, −162 to −44) when restricting pravastatin to individuals with a favourable prediction of treatment response.

Conclusion: Pravastatin prescription based on predicted responsiveness may have an encouraging potential for cardiovascular prevention. Further external validation of our results and clinical experiments are needed.

The increasing availability of large combined datasets (or big data), such as those from electronic health records and from individual participant data meta-analyses, provides new opportunities and challenges for researchers developing and validating (including updating) prediction models. These datasets typically include individuals from multiple clusters (such as multiple centres, geographical locations, or different studies). Accounting for clustering is important to avoid misleading conclusions and enables researchers to explore heterogeneity in prediction model performance across multiple centres, regions, or countries, to better tailor or match them to these different clusters, and thus to develop prediction models that are more generalisable. However, this requires prediction model researchers to adopt more specific design, analysis, and reporting methods than standard prediction model studies that do not have any inherent substantial clustering. Therefore, prediction model studies based on clustered data need to be reported differently so that readers can appraise the study methods and findings, further increasing the use and implementation of such prediction models developed or validated from clustered datasets.