Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Feb 14;40(7):621-631.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy653.

Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies

Lisa Pennells  1 Stephen Kaptoge  1 Angela Wood  1 Mike Sweeting  1 Xiaohui Zhao  2 Ian White  3 Stephen Burgess  1   4 Peter Willeit  1   5 Thomas Bolton  1 Karel G M Moons  6 Yvonne T van der Schouw  7 Randi Selmer  8 Kay-Tee Khaw  1 Vilmundur Gudnason  9   10 Gerd Assmann  11 Philippe Amouyel  12 Veikko Salomaa  13 Mika Kivimaki  14 Børge G Nordestgaard  15 Michael J Blaha  16 Lewis H Kuller  17 Hermann Brenner  18   19 Richard F Gillum  20 Christa Meisinger  21 Ian Ford  22 Matthew W Knuiman  23 Annika Rosengren  24   25 Debbie A Lawlor  26 Henry Völzke  27 Cyrus Cooper  28 Alejandro Marín Ibañez  29 Edoardo Casiglia  30 Jussi Kauhanen  31 Jackie A Cooper  32 Beatriz Rodriguez  33 Johan Sundström  34 Elizabeth Barrett-Connor  35 Rachel Dankner  36   37 Paul J Nietert  38 Karina W Davidson  39 Robert B Wallace  40 Dan G Blazer  41 Cecilia Björkelund  42 Chiara Donfrancesco  43 Harlan M Krumholz  44 Aulikki Nissinen  13 Barry R Davis  45 Sean Coady  46 Peter H Whincup  47 Torben Jørgensen  48   49   50 Pierre Ducimetiere  51 Maurizio Trevisan  52 Gunnar Engström  53 Carlos J Crespo  54 Tom W Meade  55 Marjolein Visser  56 Daan Kromhout  57 Stefan Kiechl  5 Makoto Daimon  58 Jackie F Price  59 Agustin Gómez de la Cámara  60 J Wouter Jukema  61 Benoît Lamarche  62 Altan Onat  63 Leon A Simons  64 Maryam Kavousi  65 Yoav Ben-Shlomo  66 John Gallacher  67 Jacqueline M Dekker  68 Hisatomi Arima  69 Nawar Shara  70 Robert W Tipping  71 Ronan Roussel  72 Eric J Brunner  73 Wolfgang Koenig  74   75 Masaru Sakurai  76 Jelena Pavlovic  65 Ron T Gansevoort  77 Dorothea Nagel  78 Uri Goldbourt  37 Elizabeth L M Barr  79 Luigi Palmieri  43 Inger Njølstad  80 Shinichi Sato  81 W M Monique Verschuren  82 Cherian V Varghese  83 Ian Graham  84 Oyere Onuma  83 Philip Greenland  85 Mark Woodward  86   87 Majid Ezzati  88 Bruce M Psaty  89 Naveed Sattar  90 Rod Jackson  91 Paul M Ridker  92 Nancy R Cook  92 Ralph B D'Agostino  93 Simon G Thompson  1 John Danesh  1 Emanuele Di Angelantonio  1 Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration
Collaborators, Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies

Lisa Pennells et al. Eur Heart J. .

Abstract

Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.

Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.

Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.

Keywords: Calibration; Cardiovascular disease; Discrimination; Risk algorithms; Risk prediction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Discrimination abilities of original versions of three risk prediction algorithms compared with the Framingham risk score using alternative CVD definitions. Number of events observed according to CVD definitions used by the Pooled Cohort Equations, the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation and the Reynolds Risk Score respectively were 14 564, 7433 and 17 642. Equivalent event numbers in the subset of participants with complete data for estimation of the Reynolds Risk Score were 6670, 2966 and 7953 respectively. FRS, Framingham risk score; PCE, pooled cohort equations; RRS, Reynolds risk score; SCORE, Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Observed and predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk using original version of prediction algorithms. Points presented in each plot are for each 5-year age group between 40–44 to 75–79 years. Observed risk was calculated according to the CVD definition specific to each algorithm. Assessment of the Framingham Risk Score, the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation and the Pooled Cohort Equations was based on 223 663 participants from 47 cohorts with at least 10 years of follow-up. Assessment of the Reynolds Risk Score was based on 91 008 participants from 27 cohorts with at least 10 years of follow-up. FRS, Framingham risk score; PCE, pooled cohort equations; RRS, Reynolds risk score; SCORE, Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Estimated public health impact with screening using original and recalibrated cardiovascular disease risk prediction algorithms over a range of risk thresholds in a standard US population of 100 000 people aged over 40 years. Cardiovascular disease includes fatal coronary heart disease, fatal, and non-fatal myocardial infarction and any stroke. FRS, Framingham risk score; PCE, pooled cohort equations; RRS, Reynolds risk score; SCORE, Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pairwise overlap in those classified at high risk when applying CVD risk prediction algorithms to a US standard population of 100 000 individuals. Risk thresholds to define high risk were set at 7.5% for Framingham risk score, pooled cohort equations and Reynolds risk score and 5% for Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation before recalibration. After to recalibration to our common CVD endpoint a risk threshold of 7.5% was used for all algorithms. n represents the number of individuals classified at high risk with either algorithm. FRS, Framingham risk score; PCE, pooled cohort equations; RRS, Reynolds risk score; SCORE, Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation.
Take home figure
Take home figure
Recalibration equalizes the potential public health impact of different guideline recommended cardiovascular disease risk algorithms and should be regularly applied to improve targeting of intervention. Cardiovascular disease includes fatal coronary heart disease, fatal, and non-fatal myocardial infarction and any stroke. FRS, Framingham risk score; PCE, pooled cohort equations; RRS, Reynolds risk score; SCORE, Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation.
None

Comment in

References

    1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2016;316:1997–2007. - PubMed
    1. Cooney MT, Dudina A, D’Agostino R, Graham IM.. Cardiovascular risk-estimation systems in primary prevention: do they differ? Do they make a difference? Can we see the future? Circulation 2010;122:300–310. - PubMed
    1. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, Eckel RH, Goldberg AC, Gordon D, Levy D, Lloyd-Jones DM, McBride P, Schwartz JS, Shero ST, Smith SC, Watson K, Wilson PWF.. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;129:S1–S45. - PubMed
    1. Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB, Gibbons R, Greenland P, Lackland DT, Levy D, O’Donnell CJ, Robinson JG, Schwartz JS, Shero ST, Smith SC, Sorlie P, Stone NJ, Wilson PWF.. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;129:S49–S73. - PubMed
    1. Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, Albus C, Brotons C, Catapano AL, Cooney M-T, Corrà U, Cosyns B, Deaton C, Graham I, Hall MS, Hobbs FDR, Løchen M-L, Löllgen H, Marques-Vidal P, Perk J, Prescott E, Redon J, Richter DJ, Sattar N, Smulders Y, Tiberi M, van der Worp HB, van Dis I, Verschuren WMM, Binno S, De BG, Roffi M, Aboyans V, Bachl N, Bueno H, Carerj S, Cho L, Cox J, De SJ, Egidi G, Fisher M, Fitzsimons D, Franco OH, Guenoun M, Jennings C, Jug B, Kirchhof P, Kotseva K, Lip GYH, Mach F, Mancia G, Bermudo FM, Mezzani A, Niessner A, Ponikowski P, Rauch B, Rydén L, Stauder A, Turc G, Wiklund O, Windecker S, Zamorano JL, Zamorano JL, Aboyans V, Achenbach S, Agewall S, Badimon L, Barón EG, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, Bueno H, Carerj S, Dean V, Erol Ç FD, Gaemperli O, Kirchhof P, Kolh P, Lancellotti P, Lip GYH, Nihoyannopoulos P, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Roffi M, Torbicki A, Carneiro AV, Windecker S, Metzler B, Najafov R, Stelmashok V, De MC, Dilić M, Gruev I, Miličić D, Vaverkova H, Gustafsson I, Attia I, Duishvili D, Ferrières J, Kostova N, Klimiashvili Z, Hambrecht R, Tsioufis K, Szabados E, Andersen K, Vaughan C, Zafrir B, Novo S, Davletov K, Jashari F, Kerimkulova A, Mintale I, Saade G, Petrulioniene Z, Delagardelle C, Magri CJ, Rudi V, Oukerraj L, Çölkesen BE, Schirmer H, dos RRP, Gherasim D, Nedogoda S, Zavatta M, Giga V, Filipova S, Padial LR, Kiessling A, Mach F, Mahdhaoui A, Ural D, Nesukay E, Gale C.. 2016 European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J 2016;37:2315–2381. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding