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

被引:10
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
关键词
Risk assessment; Scores; Clinical utility; Primary prevention; Validation; PREDICTION MODELS; HISTORY;
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
    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
    [J]. 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
    Mortensen, Martin Bodtker
    Tybjaerg-Hansen, Anne
    Nordestgaard, Borge G.
    [J]. JAMA CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 7 (08) : 836 - 843
  • [14] Accuracy of offspring reports of parental cardiovascular disease history: The Framingham offspring study
    Murabito, JM
    Nam, BH
    D'Agostino, RB
    Lloyd-Jones, DM
    O'Donnell, CJ
    Wilson, PWF
    [J]. 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
    Oygarden, H.
    Fromm, A.
    Sand, K. M.
    Eide, G. E.
    Thomassen, L.
    Naess, H.
    Waje-Andreassen, U.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 2016, 23 (01) : 154 - 159
  • [16] Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models
    Putter, H.
    Fiocco, M.
    Geskus, R. B.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (11) : 2389 - 2430
  • [17] Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Vergouwe, Yvonne
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2014, 35 (29) : 1925 - +
  • [18] Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics
    van Calster, Ben
    McLernon, David J.
    van Smeden, Maarten
    Wynants, Laure
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    [J]. BMC MEDICINE, 2019, 17 (01)
  • [19] Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators
    Van Calster, Ben
    Wynants, Laure
    Verbeek, Jan F. M.
    Verbakel, Jan Y.
    Christodoulou, Evangelia
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (06) : 796 - 804
  • [20] A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data
    Van Calster, Ben
    Nieboer, Daan
    Vergouwe, Yvonne
    De Cock, Bavo
    Pencina, Michael J.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 74 : 167 - 176