Comparison of nonblood-based and blood-based total CV risk scores in global populations
File(s)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Cost-effective primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and middle-income countries requires accurate risk assessment. Laboratory-based risk tools currently used in high-income countries are relatively expensive and impractical in many settings due to lack of facilities.
Objectives
This study sought to assess the correlation between a non-laboratory-based risk tool and 4 commonly used, laboratory-based risk scores in 7 countries representing nearly one-half of the world's population.
Methods
We calculated 10-year CVD risk scores for 47,466 persons with cross-sectional data collected from 16 different cohorts in 9 countries. The performance of the non-laboratory-based risk score was compared with 4 laboratory-based risk scores: Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (ASCVD [Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease]), Framingham, and SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) for high- and low-risk countries. Rankings of each score were compared using Spearman rank correlations. Based on these correlations, we measured concordance between individual absolute CVD risk as measured by the Harvard NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) risk score, and the 4 laboratory-based risk scores, using both the conventional Framingham risk thresholds of >20% and the recent ASCVD guideline threshold of >7.5%.
Results
The aggregate Spearman rank correlations between the non-laboratory-based risk score and the laboratory-based scores ranged from 0.915 to 0.979 for women and from 0.923 to 0.970 for men. When applying the conventional Framingham risk threshold of >20% over 10 years, 92.7% to 96.0% of women and 88.3% to 92.8% of men were equivalently characterized as “high” or “low” risk. Applying the recent ASCVD guidelines risk threshold of >7.5% resulted in risk characterization agreement for women ranging from 88.1% to 94.4% and from 89.0% to 93.7% for men.
Conclusions
The correlation between non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk scores is very high for both men and women. Potentially large numbers of high-risk individuals could be detected with relatively simple tools.
Cost-effective primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and middle-income countries requires accurate risk assessment. Laboratory-based risk tools currently used in high-income countries are relatively expensive and impractical in many settings due to lack of facilities.
Objectives
This study sought to assess the correlation between a non-laboratory-based risk tool and 4 commonly used, laboratory-based risk scores in 7 countries representing nearly one-half of the world's population.
Methods
We calculated 10-year CVD risk scores for 47,466 persons with cross-sectional data collected from 16 different cohorts in 9 countries. The performance of the non-laboratory-based risk score was compared with 4 laboratory-based risk scores: Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (ASCVD [Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease]), Framingham, and SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) for high- and low-risk countries. Rankings of each score were compared using Spearman rank correlations. Based on these correlations, we measured concordance between individual absolute CVD risk as measured by the Harvard NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) risk score, and the 4 laboratory-based risk scores, using both the conventional Framingham risk thresholds of >20% and the recent ASCVD guideline threshold of >7.5%.
Results
The aggregate Spearman rank correlations between the non-laboratory-based risk score and the laboratory-based scores ranged from 0.915 to 0.979 for women and from 0.923 to 0.970 for men. When applying the conventional Framingham risk threshold of >20% over 10 years, 92.7% to 96.0% of women and 88.3% to 92.8% of men were equivalently characterized as “high” or “low” risk. Applying the recent ASCVD guidelines risk threshold of >7.5% resulted in risk characterization agreement for women ranging from 88.1% to 94.4% and from 89.0% to 93.7% for men.
Conclusions
The correlation between non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk scores is very high for both men and women. Potentially large numbers of high-risk individuals could be detected with relatively simple tools.
Date Issued
2016-03-01
Date Acceptance
2016-03-01
Citation
Global Heart, 2016, 11 (1), pp.37-+
ISSN
2211-8179
Publisher
Elsevier
Start Page
37
End Page
+
Journal / Book Title
Global Heart
Volume
11
Issue
1
Copyright Statement
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This manuscript is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Identifier
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000382674100016&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Cardiovascular System & Cardiology
CARDIOVASCULAR-DISEASE RISK
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
CORONARY-HEART-DISEASE
10-YEAR RISK
SOUTH-AFRICA
PREVENTION
FRAMINGHAM
PROFILE
COMMUNITY
PRESSURE
Publication Status
Published