Estimating the performance of three cardiovascular disease risk scores: the Estonian Biobank cohort study. Issue 3 (11th January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Saar, Aet; Läll, Kristi; Alver, Maris; Marandi, Toomas; Ainla, Tiia; Eha, Jaan; Metspalu, Andres; Fischer, Krista
• Is Part Of: Journal of epidemiology and community health. Volume 73:Issue 3(2019)
• Page Start: 272
• Page End: 277
• Publication Date: 2019-01-11
• Subjects: cardiovascular disease -- Eastern Europe -- preventive medicine -- artherosclerosis -- CHD/coronorary heart; Public health -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 614.4
• DOI: 10.1136/jech-2017-209965
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-005X

Abstract

Abstract : Background: We aim to investigate the predictive ability of PCE (Pooled Cohort Equations), QRISK2 and SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Estimation) scoring systems for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction in Estonia, a country with one of the highest ASCVD event rates in Europe. Methods: Seven-year risk estimates were calculated in risk score–specific subsets of the Estonian Biobank cohort. Calibration was assessed by standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) and discrimination by Harrell's C-statistics. In addition, a head-to-head comparison of the scores was performed in the intersection of the three score-specific subcohorts. Results: PCE, QRISK2 and SCORE risk estimates were calculated for 4356, 7191 and 3987 eligible individuals, respectively. During the 7-year follow-up, 220 hard ASCVD events (PCE outcome), 671 ASCVD events (QRISK2 outcome) and 94 ASCVD deaths (SCORE outcome) occurred among the score-specific subsets of the cohort. While PCE (SIR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18) and SCORE (SIR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21) were calibrated well for the cohort, QRISK2 underestimated the risk by 48% (SIR 0.52, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.56). In terms of discrimination, PCE (C-statistic 0.778) was inferior to QRISK2 (C-statistic 0.812) and SCORE (C-statistic 0.865). All three risk scores performed at similar level in the head-to-head comparison. Conclusion: Of three widely used ASCVD risk scores, PCE and SCORE performed at acceptable level, while QRISK2 underestimated ASCVD risk markedly. These results highlight the need for evaluating the accuracy of ASCVD risk scores prior to use in high-risk populations.