Mental Health Services Drenthe, P.O. box 30007, 9400 RA, Assen, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Rob Giel Research Center, P.O. box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Jul 24;23(1):536. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-05022-1.
Patients with a mental illness are more likely to develop, and die from, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), necessitating optimal CVD-risk (CVR)-assessment to enable early detection and treatment. Whereas psychiatrists use the metabolic syndrome (MetS)-concept to estimate CVR, GPs use absolute risk-models. Additionally, two PRIMROSE-models have been specifically designed for patients with severe mental illness. We aimed to assess the agreement in risk-outcomes between these CVR-methods.
To compare risk-outcomes across the various CVR-methods, we used somatic information of psychiatric outpatients from the PHAMOUS-, and MOPHAR-database, aged 40-70 years, free of past or current CVD and diabetes. We investigated: (1) the degree-of-agreement between categorical assessments (i.e. MetS-status vs. binary risk-categories); (2) non-parametric correlations between the number of MetS-criteria and absolute risks; and (3) strength-of-agreement between absolute risks.
Seven thousand twenty-nine measurements of 3509 PHAMOUS-patients, and 748 measurements of 748 MOPHAR-patients, were included. There was systematic disagreement between the categorical CVR-assessments (all p < 0.036). Only MetS-status versus binary Framingham-assessment had a fair strength-of-agreement (κ = 0.23-0.28). The number of MetS-criteria and Framingham-scores, as well as MetS-criteria and PRIMROSE lipid-scores, showed a moderate-strong correlation (τ = 0.25-0.34). Finally, only the continuous PRIMROSE desk and lipid-outcomes showed moderate strength-of-agreement (ρ = 0.91).
The varying methods for CVR-assessment yield unequal risk predictions, and, consequently, carry the risk of significant disparities regarding treatment initiation in psychiatric patients. Considering the significantly increased health-risks in psychiatric patients, CVR-models should be recalibrated to the psychiatric population from adolescence onwards, and uniformly implemented by health care providers.
The MOPHAR research has been prospectively registered with the Netherlands Trial Register on 19th of November 2014 (NL4779).
精神疾病患者更容易患上心血管疾病(CVD),并因此死亡,因此需要对心血管疾病风险(CVR)进行最佳评估,以便早期发现和治疗。精神科医生使用代谢综合征(MetS)概念来估计 CVR,而全科医生则使用绝对风险模型。此外,还有两种 PRIMROSE 模型专门针对患有严重精神疾病的患者设计。我们旨在评估这些 CVR 方法在风险结果方面的一致性。
为了比较各种 CVR 方法的风险结果,我们使用了 PHAMOUS-和 MOPHAR 数据库中 40-70 岁的精神病门诊患者的躯体信息,这些患者没有过去或当前的 CVD 和糖尿病病史。我们调查了以下几点:(1)分类评估之间的一致性程度(即 MetS 状态与二元风险类别);(2)MetS 标准数量与绝对风险之间的非参数相关性;(3)绝对风险之间的一致性强度。
共纳入了 3509 名 PHAMOUS 患者的 7029 次测量值和 748 名 MOPHAR 患者的 748 次测量值。分类 CVR 评估之间存在系统差异(所有 p 值均小于 0.036)。只有 MetS 状态与Framingham 评估之间具有适度的一致性(κ=0.23-0.28)。MetS 标准数量与Framingham 评分以及 MetS 标准数量与 PRIMROSE 脂质评分之间存在中度强相关性(τ=0.25-0.34)。最后,只有连续的 PRIMROSE 台式机和脂质结果具有适度的一致性(ρ=0.91)。
不同的 CVR 评估方法会产生不同的风险预测,因此可能导致对精神科患者治疗开始的风险存在显著差异。考虑到精神科患者的健康风险显著增加,CVR 模型应从青春期开始重新校准到精神科人群,并由医疗保健提供者统一实施。
MOPHAR 研究已于 2014 年 11 月 19 日在荷兰试验注册处进行了前瞻性注册(NL4779)。