Alemao Evo, Cawston Hélène, Bourhis François, Al Maiwenn, Rutten-van Molken Maureen, Liao Katherine P, Solomon Daniel H
Worldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Real World Strategy & Analytics, MAPI, Nanterre, France.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017 May 1;56(5):777-786. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew440.
The aims were to compare the performance of cardiovascular risk calculators, Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and QRISK2, in RA and matched non-RA patients and to evaluate whether their performance could be enhanced by the addition of CRP.
We conducted a retrospective analysis, using a clinical practice data set linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from the UK. Patients presenting with at least one RA diagnosis code and no prior cardiovascular events were matched to non-RA patients using disease risk scores. The overall performance of the FRS and QRISK2 was compared between cohorts, and assessed with and without CRP in the RA cohort using C-Index, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the net reclassification index (NRI).
Four thousand seven hundred and eighty RA patients met the inclusion criteria and were followed for a mean of 3.8 years. The C-Index for the FRS in the non-RA and RA cohort was 0.783 and 0.754 (P < 0.001) and that of the QRISK2 was 0.770 and 0.744 (P < 0.001), respectively. Log[CRP] was positively associated with cardiovascular events, but improvements in the FRS and QRISK2 C-Indices as a result of inclusion of CRP were small, from 0.764 to 0.767 (P = 0.026) for FRS and from 0.764 to 0.765 (P = 0.250) for QRISK2. The NRI was 3.2% (95% CI: -2.8, 5.7%) for FRS and -2.0% (95% CI: -5.8, 4.5%) for QRISK2.
The C-Index for the FRS and QRISK2 was significantly better in the non-RA compared with RA patients. The addition of CRP in both equations was not associated with a significant improvement in reclassification based on NRI.
旨在比较心血管风险计算器Framingham风险评分(FRS)和QRISK2在类风湿关节炎(RA)患者及匹配的非RA患者中的表现,并评估添加C反应蛋白(CRP)是否能提高它们的性能。
我们进行了一项回顾性分析,使用与英国医院事件统计(HES)数据相关联的临床实践数据集。将至少有一个RA诊断代码且无既往心血管事件的患者,使用疾病风险评分与非RA患者进行匹配。比较队列之间FRS和QRISK2的总体表现,并在RA队列中使用C指数、赤池信息准则(AIC)和净重新分类指数(NRI),评估添加CRP前后的情况。
4780例RA患者符合纳入标准,平均随访时间为3.8年。FRS在非RA队列和RA队列中的C指数分别为0.783和0.754(P<0.001),QRISK2的C指数分别为0.770和0.744(P<0.001)。Log[CRP]与心血管事件呈正相关,但由于纳入CRP,FRS和QRISK2的C指数改善较小,FRS从0.764提高到0.767(P=0.026),QRISK2从0.764提高到0.765(P=0.250)。FRS的NRI为3.2%(95%CI:-2.8,5.7%),QRISK2的NRI为-2.0%(95%CI:-5.8,4.5%)。
与RA患者相比,FRS和QRISK2在非RA患者中的C指数显著更好。在两个公式中添加CRP与基于NRI的重新分类的显著改善无关。