Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Cardiovascular Disease Program, Biomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 22;12(4):e054617. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054617.
We compared the performance of laboratory-based cardiovascular risk prediction tools in a low-income and middle-income country setting, and estimated the use of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications in those deemed at high risk of a cardiovascular event.
A cross-sectional study.
The study population comprised adult residents (aged ≥18 years) of the Rishi Valley region located in Chittoor District, south-western Andhra Pradesh, India.
7935 participants were surveyed between 2012 and 2015. We computed the 10-year cardiovascular risk and undertook pair-to-pair analyses between various risk tools used to predict a fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular event (Framingham Risk Score (FRS), World Health Organization Risk Score (WHO-RS) and Australian Risk Score (ARS)), or a fatal cardiovascular event (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE-high and SCORE-low)). Concordance was assessed by ordinary least-products (OLP) regression (for risk score) and quadratic weighted kappa (κ, for risk category).
Of participants aged 35-74 years, 3.5% had prior cardiovascular disease. The relationships between risk scores were quasi-linear with good agreement between the FRS and ARS (OLP slope=0.96, κ=0.89). However, the WHO-RS underestimated cardiovascular risk compared with all other tools. Twenty per cent of participants had ≥20% risk of an event using the ARS; 5% greater than the FRS and nearly threefold greater than the WHO-RS. Similarly, 16% of participants had a risk score ≥5% using SCORE-high which was 6% greater than for SCORE-low. Overall, absolute cardiovascular risk increased with age and was greater in men than women. Only 9%-12% of those deemed 'high risk' were taking lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medication.
Cardiovascular risk prediction tools perform disparately in this setting of disadvantage. Few deemed at high risk were receiving the recommended treatment.
我们比较了基于实验室的心血管风险预测工具在中低收入国家环境中的性能,并估计了在那些被认为有心血管事件高风险的人群中使用降压和降脂药物的情况。
横断面研究。
研究人群包括位于印度安得拉邦西南部奇托尔区的里希山谷地区的成年居民(年龄≥18 岁)。
2012 年至 2015 年间,对 7935 名参与者进行了调查。我们计算了 10 年心血管风险,并对用于预测致命或非致命心血管事件(弗雷明汉风险评分(FRS)、世界卫生组织风险评分(WHO-RS)和澳大利亚风险评分(ARS))或致命心血管事件(系统冠状动脉风险评估(SCORE-high 和 SCORE-low)的各种风险工具进行了配对分析。通过普通最小二乘法(OLP)回归(用于风险评分)和二次加权kappa(κ,用于风险类别)评估一致性。
在年龄为 35-74 岁的参与者中,有 3.5%的人患有既往心血管疾病。风险评分之间的关系呈准线性,FRS 和 ARS 之间具有良好的一致性(OLP 斜率=0.96,κ=0.89)。然而,与所有其他工具相比,WHO-RS 低估了心血管风险。20%的参与者使用 ARS 的风险≥20%;比 FRS 高 5%,几乎是 WHO-RS 的三倍。同样,16%的参与者使用 SCORE-high 的风险评分≥5%,比 SCORE-low 高 6%。总体而言,绝对心血管风险随年龄增长而增加,且男性高于女性。只有 9%-12%的被认为是“高危”的人服用降脂或降压药物。
心血管风险预测工具在这种处于劣势的环境中表现各不相同。很少有被认为是高危的人接受了推荐的治疗。