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.

Of the 4 risk markers, coronary artery calcium provides the most significant increase in discrimination compared to the FRS alone; comparative data using PCR equations is unavailable.²⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines specifically recommend against routine measurement of carotid intima-media thickness for assessment of risk of a first atherosclerotic event.¹²

Second, a revised set of PCR equations offers improved discrimination and calibration compared to the 2013 PCR equations. A National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored group updated the equations’ cohort by 1) eliminating the original Framingham Heart Study (FHS) data, which was first collected in 1948, and 2) adding data from the Jackson Heart Study and the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Both new cohorts include patient data from 2000 to 2012. Additionally, the NIH group modified the statistical methods used to derive PCR equations. Although these revised PCR equations offer a substantially more accurate estimate of CVD risk, they have not yet been validated for routine clinical use.²¹

Bottom line: In prediction there persists imperfection

It is widely held that CVD risk prediction, with subsequent treatment to reduce identified risk, is an important component of an overall strategy to reduce the burden of CVD. Cardiovascular risk factors, such as BP and lipid values, do show limited improvement among populations in which systematic screening is practiced, but the true impact of systematic CVD risk assessment alone for healthy people has yet to be demonstrated in terms of hard clinical outcomes.²²

The true impact of systematic CVD risk assessment alone for healthy people has yet to be demonstrated in terms of hard clinical outcomes.

CVD risk prediction is most widely used to inform recommendations for statin treatment. However, ACC/AHA PCR equations might substantially overestimate CVD risk and lead to expanded use of statins in patient populations for which such treatment has less potential benefit. Nonetheless, PCR equations do offer good discrimination between higher-risk and lower-risk people.

CVD risk prediction remains an imperfect science—science that is best used as an adjunct to discussion of comprehensive CVD risk factor modification with the individual patient.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; firnhaberj@ecu.edu.