Back to Search Start Over

Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies.

Authors :
Pennells L
Kaptoge S
Wood A
Sweeting M
Zhao X
White I
Burgess S
Willeit P
Bolton T
Moons KGM
van der Schouw YT
Selmer R
Khaw KT
Gudnason V
Assmann G
Amouyel P
Salomaa V
Kivimaki M
Nordestgaard BG
Blaha MJ
Kuller LH
Brenner H
Gillum RF
Meisinger C
Ford I
Knuiman MW
Rosengren A
Lawlor DA
Völzke H
Cooper C
Marín Ibañez A
Casiglia E
Kauhanen J
Cooper JA
Rodriguez B
Sundström J
Barrett-Connor E
Dankner R
Nietert PJ
Davidson KW
Wallace RB
Blazer DG
Björkelund C
Donfrancesco C
Krumholz HM
Nissinen A
Davis BR
Coady S
Whincup PH
Jørgensen T
Ducimetiere P
Trevisan M
Engström G
Crespo CJ
Meade TW
Visser M
Kromhout D
Kiechl S
Daimon M
Price JF
Gómez de la Cámara A
Wouter Jukema J
Lamarche B
Onat A
Simons LA
Kavousi M
Ben-Shlomo Y
Gallacher J
Dekker JM
Arima H
Shara N
Tipping RW
Roussel R
Brunner EJ
Koenig W
Sakurai M
Pavlovic J
Gansevoort RT
Nagel D
Goldbourt U
Barr ELM
Palmieri L
Njølstad I
Sato S
Monique Verschuren WM
Varghese CV
Graham I
Onuma O
Greenland P
Woodward M
Ezzati M
Psaty BM
Sattar N
Jackson R
Ridker PM
Cook NR
D'Agostino RB
Thompson SG
Danesh J
Di Angelantonio E
Source :
European heart journal [Eur Heart J] 2019 Feb 14; Vol. 40 (7), pp. 621-631.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.<br />Methods and Results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.<br />Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.<br /> (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1522-9645
Volume :
40
Issue :
7
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
European heart journal
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
30476079
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy653