Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in a Middle Eastern Country: Performance of the Globorisk and Score Functions in Four Population-Based Cohort Studies of Iran.
Cardiovascular Diseases
Decision-Making
Mortality
Prediction Model
Statistical
Journal
International journal of health policy and management
ISSN: 2322-5939
Titre abrégé: Int J Health Policy Manag
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101619905
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Feb 2022
01 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
07
12
2019
accepted:
13
06
2020
pubmed:
17
7
2020
medline:
26
3
2022
entrez:
17
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Considering the importance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction for healthcare systems and the limited information available in the Middle East, we evaluated the SCORE and Globorisk models to predict CVD death in a country of this region. We included 24 427 participants (11 187 men) aged 40-80 years from four population-based cohorts in Iran. Updating approaches were used to recalibrate the baseline survival and the overall effect of the predictors of the models. We assessed the models' discrimination using C-index and then compared the observed with the predicted risk of death using calibration plots. The sensitivity and specificity of the models were estimated at the risk thresholds of 3%, 5%, 7%, and 10%. An agreement between models was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). We applied decision analysis to provide perception into the consequences of using the models in general practice; for this reason, the clinical usefulness of the models was assessed using the net benefit (NB) and decision curve analysis. The NB is a sensitivity penalized by a weighted false positive (FP) rate in population level. After 154 522 person-years of follow-up, 437 cardiovascular deaths (280 men) occurred. The 10-year observed risks were 4.2% (95% CI: 3.7%-4.8%) in men and 2.1% (1.8-2%.5%) in women. The c-index for SCORE function was 0.784 (0.756-0.812) in men and 0.780 (0.744-0.815) in women. Corresponding values for Globorisk were 0.793 (0.766- 0.820) and 0.793 (0.757-0.829). The deviation of the calibration slopes from one reflected a need for recalibration; after which, the predicted-to-observed ratio for both models was 1.02 in men and 0.95 in women. Models showed good agreement (ICC 0.93 in men, and 0.89 in women). Decision curve showed that using both models results in the same clinical usefulness at the risk threshold of 5%, in both men and women; however, at the risk threshold of 10%, Globorisk had better clinical usefulness in women (Difference: 8%, 95% CI: 4%-13%). Original Globorisk and SCORE models overestimate the CVD risk in Iranian populations resulting in a high number of people who need intervention. Recalibration could adopt these models to precisely predict CVD mortality. Globorisk showed better performance clinically, only among high-risk women.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Considering the importance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction for healthcare systems and the limited information available in the Middle East, we evaluated the SCORE and Globorisk models to predict CVD death in a country of this region.
METHODS
METHODS
We included 24 427 participants (11 187 men) aged 40-80 years from four population-based cohorts in Iran. Updating approaches were used to recalibrate the baseline survival and the overall effect of the predictors of the models. We assessed the models' discrimination using C-index and then compared the observed with the predicted risk of death using calibration plots. The sensitivity and specificity of the models were estimated at the risk thresholds of 3%, 5%, 7%, and 10%. An agreement between models was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). We applied decision analysis to provide perception into the consequences of using the models in general practice; for this reason, the clinical usefulness of the models was assessed using the net benefit (NB) and decision curve analysis. The NB is a sensitivity penalized by a weighted false positive (FP) rate in population level.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After 154 522 person-years of follow-up, 437 cardiovascular deaths (280 men) occurred. The 10-year observed risks were 4.2% (95% CI: 3.7%-4.8%) in men and 2.1% (1.8-2%.5%) in women. The c-index for SCORE function was 0.784 (0.756-0.812) in men and 0.780 (0.744-0.815) in women. Corresponding values for Globorisk were 0.793 (0.766- 0.820) and 0.793 (0.757-0.829). The deviation of the calibration slopes from one reflected a need for recalibration; after which, the predicted-to-observed ratio for both models was 1.02 in men and 0.95 in women. Models showed good agreement (ICC 0.93 in men, and 0.89 in women). Decision curve showed that using both models results in the same clinical usefulness at the risk threshold of 5%, in both men and women; however, at the risk threshold of 10%, Globorisk had better clinical usefulness in women (Difference: 8%, 95% CI: 4%-13%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Original Globorisk and SCORE models overestimate the CVD risk in Iranian populations resulting in a high number of people who need intervention. Recalibration could adopt these models to precisely predict CVD mortality. Globorisk showed better performance clinically, only among high-risk women.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32668896
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.103
pmc: PMC9278599
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
210-217Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Références
Eur Heart J. 2016 Aug 1;37(29):2315-2381
pubmed: 27222591
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 1;184:587-594
pubmed: 25769004
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008 Aug;15(4):402-8
pubmed: 18677163
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Oct;42(5):1300-8
pubmed: 23081880
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Soz Praventivmed. 2002;47(6):408-26
pubmed: 12643001
Epidemiology. 2010 Jan;21(1):128-38
pubmed: 20010215
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 10;19(1):719
pubmed: 31182076
Am Stat. 2008;62(4):314-320
pubmed: 19132141
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Nov 26;8:53
pubmed: 19036144
BMJ. 2016 May 16;353:i2416
pubmed: 27184143
Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74
pubmed: 17099194
J Hum Hypertens. 2011 Sep;25(9):545-53
pubmed: 21107436
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015 Jan;22(1):119-26
pubmed: 24002125
PLoS One. 2017 May 3;12(5):e0176540
pubmed: 28467510
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2005 Oct;12(5):433-41
pubmed: 16210929
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Nov;26(17):1886-1887
pubmed: 31291777
Eur Heart J. 2003 Jun;24(11):987-1003
pubmed: 12788299
PLoS One. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0126779
pubmed: 26011607
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 19;12(12):e0189389
pubmed: 29261727
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Feb;39(1):52-9
pubmed: 19332502
Eur J Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;29(9):621-8
pubmed: 25179794
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 May;3(5):339-55
pubmed: 25819778
BMJ Open. 2018 Jul 5;8(7):e020303
pubmed: 29980541
Int J Cardiol. 2014 Sep;176(1):211-8
pubmed: 25070380
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Aug 1;176(3):177-86
pubmed: 22814370
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146