Dataset Information

A comparative assessment of non-laboratory-based versus commonly used laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores in the NHANES III population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

National and international primary CVD risk screening guidelines focus on using total CVD risk scores. Recently, we developed a non-laboratory-based CVD risk score (inputs: age, sex, smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, treatment of hypertension, body-mass index), which can assess risk faster and at lower costs compared to laboratory-based scores (inputs include cholesterol values). We aimed to assess the exchangeability of the non-laboratory-based risk score to four commonly used laboratory-based scores (Framingham CVD [2008, 1991 versions], and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE] for low and high risk settings) in an external validation population.

Methods and findings

Analyses were based on individual-level, score-specific rankings of risk for adults in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) aged 25-74 years, without history of CVD or cancer (n?=?5,999). Risk characterization agreement was based on overlap in dichotomous risk characterization (thresholds of 10-year risk >10-20%) and Spearman rank correlation. Risk discrimination was assessed using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis (10-year CVD death outcome). Risk characterization agreement ranged from 91.9-95.7% and 94.2-95.1% with Spearman correlation ranges of 0.957-0.980 and 0.946-0.970 for men and women, respectively. In men, c-statistics for the non-laboratory-based, Framingham (2008, 1991), and SCORE (high, low) functions were 0.782, 0.776, 0.781, 0.785, and 0.785, with p-values for differences relative to the non-laboratory-based score of 0.44, 0.89, 0.68 and 0.65, respectively. In women, the corresponding c-statistics were 0.809, 0.834, 0.821, 0.792, and 0.792, with corresponding p-values of 0.04, 0.34, 0.11 and 0.09, respectively.

Conclusions

Every score discriminated risk of CVD death well, and there was high agreement in risk characterization between non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk scores, which suggests that the non-laboratory-based score can be a useful proxy for Framingham or SCORE functions in resource-limited settings. Future external validation studies can assess whether the sex-specific risk discrimination results hold in other populations.

SUBMITTER: Pandya A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3105026 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparative assessment of non-laboratory-based versus commonly used laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores in the NHANES III population.

Pandya Ankur A Weinstein Milton C MC Gaziano Thomas A TA

PloS one 20110531 5

<h4>Background</h4>National and international primary CVD risk screening guidelines focus on using total CVD risk scores. Recently, we developed a non-laboratory-based CVD risk score (inputs: age, sex, smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, treatment of hypertension, body-mass index), which can assess risk faster and at lower costs compared to laboratory-based scores (inputs include cholesterol values). We aimed to assess the exchangeability of the non-laboratory-based risk score to four co ...[more]

PMID: 21655241

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNucleic acid amplification tests are increasingly used for the rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis. We undertook a comparative study of the efficiency and diagnostic yield of a real-time PCR senX3-regX3 based assay versus the classical IS6110 target and the new commercial methods.MethodsThis single-blind prospective comparative study included 145 consecutive samples: 76 from patients with culture-confirmed tuberculosis (86.8% pulmonary and 13.2% extrapulmonary tuberculosis: 48.7% smear-positive and 51.3% smear-negative) and 69 control samples (24 from patients diagnosed with non-tuberculous mycobacteria infections and 45 from patients with suspected tuberculosis which was eventually ruled out). All samples were tested by two CE-marked assays (Xpert®MTB/RIF and AnyplexTM plus MTB/NTM) and two in-house assays targeting senX3-regX3 and the IS6110 gene.ResultsThe detection limit ranged from 1.00E+01 fg for Anyplex, senX3-regX3 and IS6110 to 1.00E+04 fg for Xpert. All three Xpert, senX3-regX3 and IS6110 assays detected all 37 smear-positive cases. Conversely, Anyplex was positive in 34 (91.9%) smear-positive cases. In patients with smear-negative tuberculosis, differences were observed between the assays; Xpert detected 22 (56.41%) of the 39 smear-negative samples, Anyplex 24 (61.53%), senX3-regX3 28 (71.79%) and IS6110 35 (89.74%). Xpert and senX3-regX3 were negative in all control samples; however, the false positive rate was 8.7% and 13% for Anyplex and IS6110, respectively. The overall sensitivity was 77.6%, 85.7%, 77.3% and 94.7% and the specificity was 100%, 100%, 90.8% and 87.0% for the Xpert, senX3-regX3, Anyplex and IS6110 assays, respectively.ConclusionReal-time PCR assays targeting IS6110 lack the desired specificity. The Xpert MTB/RIF and in-house senX3-regX3 assays are both sensitive and specific for the detection of MTBC in both pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples. Therefore, the real time PCR senX3-regX3 based assay could be a useful and complementary tool in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hypernatraemia is common in inpatients and is associated with substantial morbidity. Its differential diagnosis is challenging, and delayed treatment may have devastating consequences. The most important hormone for the regulation of water homeostasis is arginine vasopressin, and copeptin, the C-terminal portion of the precursor peptide of arginine vasopressin, might be a reliable new parameter with which to assess the underlying cause of hypernatraemia. METHODS:In this prospective, multicentre, observational study conducted in two tertiary referral centres in Switzerland, 92 patients with severe hyperosmolar hypernatraemia (Na+ > 155 mmol/L) were included. After a standardised diagnostic evaluation, the underlying cause of hypernatraemia was identified and copeptin levels were measured. RESULTS:The most common aetiology of hypernatraemia was dehydration (DH) (n = 65 [71%]), followed by salt overload (SO) (n = 20 [22%]), central diabetes insipidus (CDI) (n = 5 [5%]) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (NDI) (n = 2 [2%]). Low urine osmolality was indicative for patients with CDI and NDI (P < 0.01). Patients with CDI had lower copeptin levels than patients with DH or SO (both P < 0.01) or those with NDI. Copeptin identified CDI with an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00), and a cut-off value ≤ 4.4pmol/L showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99% to predict CDI. Similarly, urea values were lower in CDI than in DH or SO (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively) or NDI. The AUC for diagnosing CDI was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), and a cut-off value < 5.05 mmol/L showed high specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of CDI (98% and 100%, respectively). Copeptin and urea could not differentiate hypernatraemia induced by DH from that induced by SO (P = 0.66 and P = 0.30, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Copeptin and urea reliably identify patients with CDI and are therefore helpful tools for therapeutic management in patients with severe hypernatraemia. TRIALS REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01456533 . Registered on 20 October 2011.

Dataset Information

A comparative assessment of non-laboratory-based versus commonly used laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores in the NHANES III population.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

A comparative assessment of non-laboratory-based versus commonly used laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores in the NHANES III population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets