Risk prediction models for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A systematic assessment with particular reference to Qatar.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a common disease in the State of Qatar and results in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life and mortality. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) is currently used in Qatar to identify those at high risk of ASCVD. However, it is unclear if this is the optimal ASCVD risk prediction model for use in Qatar's ethnically diverse population.Aims
This systematic review aimed to identify, assess the methodological quality of and compare the properties of established ASCVD risk prediction models for the Qatari population.Methods
Two reviewers performed head-to-head comparisons of established ASCVD risk calculators systematically. Studies were independently screened according to predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Data were descriptively summarized and narratively synthesized with reporting of key statistical properties of the models.Results
We identified 20,487 studies, of which 41 studies met our eligibility criteria. We identified 16 unique risk prediction models. Overall, 50% (n = 8) of the risk prediction models were judged to be at low risk of bias. Only 13% of the studies (n = 2) were judged at low risk of bias for applicability, namely, PREDICT and QRISK3.Only the PREDICT risk calculator scored low risk in both domains.Conclusions
There is no existing ASCVD risk calculator particularly well suited for use in Qatar's ethnically diverse population. Of the available models, PREDICT and QRISK3 appear most appropriate because of their inclusion of ethnicity. In the absence of a locally derived ASCVD for Qatar, there is merit in a formal head-to-head comparison between PCE, which is currently in use, and PREDICT and QRISK3.
SUBMITTER: Sheikh A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475266 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUpdated American or Chinese guidelines recommended calculating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) or Prediction for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in China (China-PAR) models; however, evidence on performance of both models in Asian populations is limited.ObjectivesThe authors aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the PCE or China-PAR models in a Chinese contemporary cohort.MethodsData were extracted from the CHERRY (CHinese Electronic health Records Research in Yinzhou) study. Participants aged 40 to 79 years without prior ASCVD at baseline from 2010 to 2016 were included. ASCVD was defined as nonfatal or fatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. Models were assessed for discrimination and calibration.ResultsAmong 226,406 participants, 5362 (2.37%) adults developed a first ASCVD event during a median of 4.60 years of follow-up. Both models had good discrimination: C-statistics in men were 0.763 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.754-0.773) for PCE and 0.758 (95% CI: 0.749-0.767) for China-PAR; C-statistics in women were 0.820 (95% CI: 0.812-0.829) for PCE and 0.811 (95% CI: 0.802-0.819) for China-PAR. The China-PAR model underpredicted risk by 20% in men and by 40% in women, especially in the highest-risk groups. However, PCE overestimated by 63% in men and inversely underestimated the risk by 34% in women with poor calibration (both P < 0.001). After recalibration, observed and predicted risks by recalibrated PCE were better aligned.ConclusionsIn this large-scale population-based study, both PCE and China-PAR had good discrimination in 5-year ASCVD risk prediction. China-PAR outperformed PCE in calibration, whereas recalibration equalized the performance of PCE and China-PAR. Further specific models are needed to improve accuracy in the highest-risk groups.
| S-EPMC9627894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the performance of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) in a large, prospective, community-based cohort in Korea and to compare it with that of the Framingham Global Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score (FRS-CVD) and the Korean Risk Prediction Model (KRPM). METHODS:In the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KOGES)-Ansan and Ansung study, we evaluated calibration and discrimination of the PCE for non-Hispanic whites (PCE-WH) and for African Americans (PCE-AA) and compared their predictive abilities with the FRS-CVD and the KRPM. RESULTS:The present study included 7,932 individuals (3,778 men and 4,154 women). The PCE-WH and PCE-AA moderately overestimated the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) for men (6% and 13%, respectively) but underestimated the risk for women (-49% and -25%, respectively). The FRS-CVD overestimated ASCVD risk for men (91%) but provided a good risk prediction for women (3%). The KRPM underestimated ASCVD risk for men (-31%) and women (-31%). All the risk prediction models showed good discrimination in both men (C-statistic 0.730 to 0.735) and women (C-statistic 0.726 to 0.732). Recalibration of the PCE using data from the KOGES-Ansan and Ansung study substantially improved the predictive accuracy in men. CONCLUSION:In the KOGES-Ansan and Ansung study, the PCE overestimated ASCVD risk for men and underestimated the risk for women. The PCE-WH and the FRS-CVD provided an accurate prediction of ASCVD in men and women, respectively.
| S-EPMC7332332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The improvement in discrimination gained by adding nontraditional cardiovascular risk markers cited in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines to the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimator (pooled cohort equation [PCE]) is untested. OBJECTIVES:This study assessed the predictive accuracy and improvement in reclassification gained by the addition of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels, and family history (FH) of ASCVD to the PCE in participants of MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). METHODS:The PCE was calibrated (cPCE) and used for this analysis. The Cox proportional hazards survival model, Harrell's C statistics, and net reclassification improvement analyses were used. ASCVD was defined as myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease-related death, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS:Of 6,814 MESA participants not prescribed statins at baseline, 5,185 had complete data and were included in this analysis. Their mean age was 61 years; 53.1% were women, 9.8% had diabetes, and 13.6% were current smokers. After 10 years of follow-up, 320 (6.2%) ASCVD events occurred. CAC score, ABI, and FH were independent predictors of ASCVD events in the multivariable Cox models. CAC score modestly improved the Harrell's C statistic (0.74 vs. 0.76; p = 0.04); ABI, hsCRP levels, and FH produced no improvement in Harrell's C statistic when added to the cPCE. CONCLUSIONS:CAC score, ABI, and FH were independent predictors of ASCVD events. CAC score modestly improved the discriminative ability of the cPCE compared with other nontraditional risk markers.
| S-EPMC4724058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline and Embase until June 2013.Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population.Results 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively.Conclusions There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.
| S-EPMC4868251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo provide a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models for women and models that include female-specific predictors.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of CVD risk prediction models for women in the general population by updating a previous review. We searched Medline and Embase up to July 2017 and included studies in which; (a) a new model was developed, (b) an existing model was validated, or (c) a predictor was added to an existing model.ResultsA total of 285 prediction models for women have been developed, of these 160 (56%) were female-specific models, in which a separate model was developed solely in women and 125 (44%) were sex-predictor models. Out of the 160 female-specific models, 2 (1.3%) included one or more female-specific predictors (mostly reproductive risk factors). A total of 591 validations of sex-predictor or female-specific models were identified in 206 papers. Of these, 333 (56%) validations concerned nine models (five versions of Framingham, SCORE, Pooled Cohort Equations and QRISK). The median and pooled C statistics were comparable for sex-predictor and female-specific models. In 260 articles the added value of new predictors to an existing model was described, however in only 3 of these female-specific predictors (reproductive risk factors) were added.ConclusionsThere is an abundance of models for women in the general population. Female-specific and sex-predictor models have similar predictors and performance. Female-specific predictors are rarely included. Further research is needed to assess the added value of female-specific predictors to CVD models for women and provide physicians with a well-performing prediction model for women.
| S-EPMC6324808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIndividualised breast cancer risk prediction models may be key for planning risk-based screening approaches. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and quality assessment of these models addressed to women in the general population.MethodsWe followed the Cochrane Collaboration methods searching in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases up to February 2018. We included studies reporting a model to estimate the individualised risk of breast cancer in women in the general population. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Results are narratively summarised.ResultsWe included 24 studies out of the 2976 citations initially retrieved. Twenty studies were based on four models, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), the Rosner & Colditz model, and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS), whereas four studies addressed other original models. Four of the studies included genetic information. The quality of the studies was moderate with some limitations in the discriminative power and data inputs. A maximum AUROC value of 0.71 was reported in the study conducted in a screening context.ConclusionIndividualised risk prediction models are promising tools for implementing risk-based screening policies. However, it is a challenge to recommend any of them since they need further improvement in their quality and discriminatory capacity.
| S-EPMC6738106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pooled cohort equations (PCE) predict atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in patients with characteristics within prespecified ranges and has uncertain performance among Asians or Hispanics. It is unknown if machine learning (ML) models can improve ASCVD risk prediction across broader diverse, real-world populations. We developed ML models for ASCVD risk prediction for multi-ethnic patients using an electronic health record (EHR) database from Northern California. Our cohort included patients aged 18 years or older with no prior CVD and not on statins at baseline (n = 262,923), stratified by PCE-eligible (n = 131,721) or PCE-ineligible patients based on missing or out-of-range variables. We trained ML models [logistic regression with L2 penalty and L1 lasso penalty, random forest, gradient boosting machine (GBM), extreme gradient boosting] and determined 5-year ASCVD risk prediction, including with and without incorporation of additional EHR variables, and in Asian and Hispanic subgroups. A total of 4309 patients had ASCVD events, with 2077 in PCE-ineligible patients. GBM performance in the full cohort, including PCE-ineligible patients (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.835, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.825-0.846), was significantly better than that of the PCE in the PCE-eligible cohort (AUC 0.775, 95% CI: 0.755-0.794). Among patients aged 40-79, GBM performed similarly before (AUC 0.784, 95% CI: 0.759-0.808) and after (AUC 0.790, 95% CI: 0.765-0.814) incorporating additional EHR data. Overall, ML models achieved comparable or improved performance compared to the PCE while allowing risk discrimination in a larger group of patients including PCE-ineligible patients. EHR-trained ML models may help bridge important gaps in ASCVD risk prediction.
| S-EPMC7511400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prediction models are commonly used to estimate risk for cardiovascular diseases, to inform diagnosis and management. However, performance may vary substantially across relevant subgroups of the population. Here we investigated heterogeneity of accuracy and fairness metrics across a variety of subgroups for risk prediction of two common diseases: atrial fibrillation (AF) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We calculated the Cohorts for Heart and Aging in Genomic Epidemiology Atrial Fibrillation (CHARGE-AF) score for AF and the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) score for ASCVD in three large datasets: Explorys Life Sciences Dataset (Explorys, n = 21,809,334), Mass General Brigham (MGB, n = 520,868), and the UK Biobank (UKBB, n = 502,521). Our results demonstrate important performance heterogeneity across subpopulations defined by age, sex, and presence of preexisting disease, with fairly consistent patterns across both scores. For example, using CHARGE-AF, discrimination declined with increasing age, with a concordance index of 0.72 [95% CI 0.72-0.73] for the youngest (45-54 years) subgroup to 0.57 [0.56-0.58] for the oldest (85-90 years) subgroup in Explorys. Even though sex is not included in CHARGE-AF, the statistical parity difference (i.e., likelihood of being classified as high risk) was considerable between males and females within the 65-74 years subgroup with a value of - 0.33 [95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.33]. We also observed weak discrimination (i.e., < 0.7) and suboptimal calibration (i.e., calibration slope outside of 0.7-1.3) in large subsets of the population; for example, all individuals aged 75 years or older in Explorys (17.4%). Our findings highlight the need to characterize and quantify the behavior of clinical risk models within specific subpopulations so they can be used appropriately to facilitate more accurate, consistent, and equitable assessment of disease risk.
| S-EPMC9307639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the currently available risk prediction models (RPMs) for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), diabetes and hypertension, and to compare their effectiveness in proper recognition of patients at risk of developing these diseases.DesignUmbrella systematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews or meta-analysis examining and comparing performances of RPMs for CVDs, hypertension or diabetes in healthy adult (18-65 years old) population, published in English language.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted according to the following parameters: number of studies included, intervention (RPMs applied/assessed), comparison, performance, validation and outcomes. A narrative synthesis was performed. Data were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Study selection3612 studies were identified. After title/abstract screening and removal of duplicate articles, 37 studies met the eligibility criteria. After reading the full text, 13 were deemed relevant for inclusion. Three further papers from the reference lists of these articles were then added.Study appraisalThe methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.Risk of bias in individual studiesRisk of Bias evaluation was carried out using the ROBIS tool.ResultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria: six focused on diabetes, two on hypertension and eight on CVDs. Globally, prediction models for diabetes and hypertension showed no significant difference in effectiveness. Conversely, some promising differences among prediction tools were highlighted for CVDs. The Ankle-Brachial Index, in association with the Framingham tool, and QRISK scores provided some evidence of a certain superiority compared with Framingham alone.LimitationsDue to the significant heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The electronic search was limited to studies in English and to three major international databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library), with additional works derived from the reference list of other studies; grey literature with unpublished documents was not included in the search. Furthermore, no assessment of potential adverse effects of RPMs was carried out.ConclusionsConsistent evidence is available only for CVD prediction: the Framingham score, alone or in combination with the Ankle-Brachial Index, and the QRISK score can be confirmed as the gold standard. Further efforts should not be concentrated on creating new scores, but rather on performing external validation of the existing ones, in particular on high-risk groups. Benefits could be further improved by supplementing existing models with information on lifestyle, personal habits, family and employment history, social network relationships, income and education.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088012.
| S-EPMC6937066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Case-cohort studies are increasingly used to quantify the association of novel factors with disease risk. Conventional measures of predictive ability need modification for this design. We show how Harrell's C-index, Royston's D, and the category-based and continuous versions of the net reclassification index (NRI) can be adapted.We simulated full cohort and case-cohort data, with sampling fractions ranging from 1% to 90%, using covariates from a cohort study of coronary heart disease, and two incidence rates. We then compared the accuracy and precision of the proposed risk prediction metrics.The C-index and D must be weighted in order to obtain unbiased results. The NRI does not need modification, provided that the relevant non-subcohort cases are excluded from the calculation. The empirical standard errors across simulations were consistent with analytical standard errors for the C-index and D but not for the NRI. Good relative efficiency of the prediction metrics was observed in our examples, provided the sampling fraction was above 40% for the C-index, 60% for D, or 30% for the NRI. Stata code is made available.Case-cohort designs can be used to provide unbiased estimates of the C-index, D measure and NRI.
| S-EPMC3848813 | biostudies-other