CV risk prediction tools: Imperfect, Yes, but are they serviceable?

,

Applied Evidence

CV risk prediction tools: Imperfect, Yes, but are they serviceable?

J Fam Pract. 2018 September;67(9):E3-E8

PDF Download

References

1. Taylor F, Huffman MD, Macedo AF, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD004816.

2. Holt T. Predicting cardiovascular disease. BMJ. 2016;353:i2621.

3. Kannel WB, McGee D, Gordon T. A general cardiovascular risk profile: the Framingham Study. Am J Cardiol. 1976;38:46-51.

4. Preiss D, Kristensen SL. The new pooled cohort equations risk calculator. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31:613-619.

5. Koller MT, Steyerberg EW, Wolbers M, et al. Validity of the Framingham point scores in the elderly: results from the Rotterdam study. Am Heart J. 2007;154:87-93.

6. Franklin SS, Larson MG, Khan SA, et al. Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2001;103:1245-1249.

7. Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease? BMJ. 1994;308:367-372.

8. Koller MT, Leening MJ, Wolbers M, et al. Development and validation of a coronary risk prediction model for older U.S. and European persons in the Cardiovascular Health Study and the Rotterdam Study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:389-397.

9. Damen JA, Hooft L, Schuit E, et al. Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review. BMJ. 2016;353:i2416.

10. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ. 2008;336:1475–1482.

11. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2889-2934.

12. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2935-2959.

13. US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. Statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;316:1997-2007.

14. Pencina MJ, Navar-Boggan AM, D’Agostino RB Sr, et al. Application of new cholesterol guidelines to a population-based sample. New Engl J Med. 2014;370:1422-1431.

15. Loprinzi PD, Addoh O. Predictive validity of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled cohort equations in predicting all-cause and cardiovascular disease–specific mortality in a national prospective cohort study of adults in the United States. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:763-769.

16. Pursnani A, Massaro JM, D’Agostino RB Sr, et al. Guideline-based statin eligibility, coronary artery calcification, and cardiovascular events. JAMA. 2015;314:134-141.

17. Rana JS, Tabada GH, Solomon MD, et al. Accuracy of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk equation in a large contemporary, multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:2118-2130.

18. Ridker PM, Cook NR. Statins: new American guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Lancet. 2013;382:1762-1765.

19. Cook NR, Ridker PM. Further insight into the cardiovascular risk calculator: the roles of statins, revascularizations, and underascertainment in the Women’s Health Study. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1964-1971.

20. Yeboah J, McClelland RJ, Polonsky TS, et al. Comparison of novel risk markers for improvement in cardiovascular risk assessment in intermediate-risk individuals. JAMA. 2012;308:788-795.

21. Yadlowsky S, Hayward RA, Sussman JB, et al. Clinical implications of revised pooled cohort equations for estimating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:20-29.

22. Dyakova M, Shantikumar S, Colquitt J, et al. Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 29;(1):CD010411.

Although demographic changes have increasingly led to an extension of primary prevention strategies for CAD to elderly people, the FRS has been demonstrated to perform less well in patients older than 70 years, particularly men.⁵ An ideal CAD prediction model for elderly people should take into account that, with growing age and frailty, CAD events may be increasingly preempted by death from competing non-coronary causes. In addition, the predictive association of typical CVD risk factors diminishes with increasing age.^6,7 Koller and colleagues developed a CAD risk prediction model that accounted for death from non-coronary causes and was validated specifically in patients 65 years and older. Koller’s prediction model provided well-calibrated risk estimates, but it was still not substantially more accurate than the FRS—illustrating the overall difficulty in predicting CAD risk in elderly people.⁸

Alternative risk calculators have come on the scene

Over the past 2 decades, numerous models have been developed in an attempt to overcome the perceived shortcomings of the FRS. A recent systematic review identified 363 prediction models described in the medical literature prior to July 2013.⁹ The usefulness of most models remains unclear, however, owing to:

methodological shortcomings,
considerable heterogeneity in the definitions of outcomes, and
lack of external validation.

Even models that are well-validated for a specific population suffer from lack of applicability to a broad multinational population.

In the United Kingdom (UK), electronic health record systems now have the QRISK2 tool embedded to calculate 10-year CVD risk. This algorithm incorporates multiple traditional and nontraditional risk factors (TABLE¹⁰). With the inclusion of additional risk factors and validation performed in a population similar to the one from which the algorithm was derived, QRISK2 predicts CVD risk in the UK population more accurately than the modified FRS does.¹⁰ It is not clear, however, whether the same algorithm can be applied to the general US population.

New tool: 2013 ACC/AHA pooled cohort risk equations

In the context of multiple imperfect CVD risk-prediction algorithms, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines published the 2013 Pooled Cohort Risk (PCR) equations to predict 10-year risk of a first atherosclerotic CVD event. The Task Force acknowledged concern that the FRS is based on a cohort that might not accurately represent the general US population. Accordingly, PCR equations were developed from 5 large National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded cohorts: the Framingham Heart Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, and the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study.

Continue to: The resulting CVD risk calculator incorporates...