Validation of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons in the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population cohort

被引:21
作者
van Trier, Tinka J. [1 ]
Snaterse, Marjolein [1 ]
Boekholdt, S. Matthijs [1 ]
op Reimer, Wilma J. M. Scholte [2 ]
Hageman, Steven H. J. [3 ]
Visseren, Frank L. J. [3 ]
Dorresteijn, Jannick A. N. [3 ]
Peters, Ron J. G. [1 ]
Jorstad, Harald T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr, Dept Cardiol, Amsterdam Cardiovasc Sci, Meibergdreef 9, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] HU Univ Appl Sci Utrecht, Res Grp Chron Dis, Padualaan 99, NL-3584 CH Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Vasc Med, Heidelberglaan 100, NL-3584 CX Utrecht, Netherlands
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Risk assessment; Scores; Clinical utility; Primary prevention; Validation; PREDICTION MODELS; HISTORY; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1093/eurjpc/zwad318
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims The European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and SCORE2-Older Persons (OP) models are recommended to identify individuals at high 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Independent validation and assessment of clinical utility is needed. This study aims to assess discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of low-risk SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP.Methods and results Validation in individuals aged 40-69 years (SCORE2) and 70-79 years (SCORE2-OP) without baseline CVD or diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk prospective population study. We compared 10-year CVD risk estimates with observed outcomes (cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke). For SCORE2, 19 560 individuals (57% women) had 10-year CVD risk estimates of 3.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.6-3.7] vs. observed 3.8% (95% CI 3.6-4.1) [observed (O)/expected (E) ratio 1.0 (95% CI 1.0-1.1)]. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.77), with underestimation of risk in men [O/E 1.4 (95% CI 1.3-1.6)] and overestimation in women [O/E 0.7 (95% CI 0.6-0.8)]. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed clinical benefit. Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2-Older Persons in 3113 individuals (58% women) predicted 10-year CVD events in 10.2% (95% CI 10.1-10.3) vs. observed 15.3% (95% CI 14.0-16.5) [O/E ratio 1.6 (95% CI 1.5-1.7)]. The AUC was 0.63 (95% CI 0.60-0.65) with underestimation of risk across sex and risk ranges. Decision curve analysis showed limited clinical benefit.Conclusion In a UK population cohort, the SCORE2 low-risk model showed fair discrimination and calibration, with clinical benefit for preventive treatment initiation decisions. In contrast, in individuals aged 70-79 years, SCORE2-OP demonstrated poor discrimination, underestimated risk in both sexes, and limited clinical utility.
引用
收藏
页码:182 / 189
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[11]  
Matsushita K, 2022, EUR HEART J, V43, P2256
[12]   PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration [J].
Moons, Karel G. M. ;
Wolff, Robert F. ;
Riley, Richard D. ;
Whiting, Penny F. ;
Westwood, Marie ;
Collins, Gary S. ;
Reitsma, Johannes B. ;
Kleijnen, Jos ;
Mallett, Sue .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 170 (01) :W1-W33
[13]   Statin Eligibility for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease According to 2021 European Prevention Guidelines Compared With Other International Guidelines [J].
Mortensen, Martin Bodtker ;
Tybjaerg-Hansen, Anne ;
Nordestgaard, Borge G. .
JAMA CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 7 (08) :836-843
[14]   Accuracy of offspring reports of parental cardiovascular disease history: The Framingham offspring study [J].
Murabito, JM ;
Nam, BH ;
D'Agostino, RB ;
Lloyd-Jones, DM ;
O'Donnell, CJ ;
Wilson, PWF .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 140 (06) :434-440
[15]   Can the cardiovascular family history reported by our patients be trusted? The Norwegian Stroke in the Young Study [J].
Oygarden, H. ;
Fromm, A. ;
Sand, K. M. ;
Eide, G. E. ;
Thomassen, L. ;
Naess, H. ;
Waje-Andreassen, U. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 2016, 23 (01) :154-159
[16]   Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models [J].
Putter, H. ;
Fiocco, M. ;
Geskus, R. B. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (11) :2389-2430
[17]   Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation [J].
Steyerberg, Ewout W. ;
Vergouwe, Yvonne .
EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2014, 35 (29) :1925-+
[18]   Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics [J].
van Calster, Ben ;
McLernon, David J. ;
van Smeden, Maarten ;
Wynants, Laure ;
Steyerberg, Ewout W. .
BMC MEDICINE, 2019, 17 (01)
[19]   Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators [J].
Van Calster, Ben ;
Wynants, Laure ;
Verbeek, Jan F. M. ;
Verbakel, Jan Y. ;
Christodoulou, Evangelia ;
Vickers, Andrew J. ;
Roobol, Monique J. ;
Steyerberg, Ewout W. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (06) :796-804
[20]   A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data [J].
Van Calster, Ben ;
Nieboer, Daan ;
Vergouwe, Yvonne ;
De Cock, Bavo ;
Pencina, Michael J. ;
Steyerberg, Ewout W. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 74 :167-176