External validation and comparison of six cardiovascular risk prediction models in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE)-Colombia study
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
AbstractAimsTo externally validate the SCORE2, AHA/ACC pooled cohort equation (PCE), Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Non-Laboratory INTERHEART Risk Score (NL-IHRS), Globorisk-LAC, and WHO prediction models and compare their discrimination and calibration capacity.Methods and resultsValidation in individuals aged 40–69 years with at least 10 years of follow-up and without baseline use of statins or cardiovascular diseases from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE)-Colombia prospective cohort study. For discrimination, the C-statistic, and receiver operating characteristic curves with the integrated area under the curve (AUCi) were used and compared. For calibration, the smoothed time-to-event method was used, choosing a recalibration factor based on the integrated calibration index (ICI). In the NL-IHRS, linear regressions were used. In 3802 participants (59.1% women), baseline risk ranged from 4.8% (SCORE2 women) to 55.7% (NL-IHRS). After a mean follow-up of 13.2 years, 234 events were reported (4.8 cases per 1000 person-years). The C-statistic ranged between 0.637 (0.601–0.672) in NL-IHRS and 0.767 (0.657–0.877) in AHA/ACC PCE. Discrimination was similar between AUCi. In women, higher over-prediction was observed in the Globorisk-LAC (61%) and WHO (59%). In men, higher over-prediction was observed in FRS (72%) and AHA/ACC PCE (71%). Overestimations were corrected after multiplying by a factor derived from the ICI.ConclusionSix prediction models had a similar discrimination capacity, supporting their use after multiplying by a correction factor. If blood tests are unavailable, NL-IHRS is a reasonable option. Our results suggest that these models could be used in other countries of Latin America after correcting the overestimations with a multiplying factor.
