AIMS: To assess whether the Framingham and PROCAM risk functions were applicable to men in Belfast and France. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an external validation study within the PRIME (Prospective Epidemiological Study of Myocardial Infarction) cohort study. It comprised men recruited in Belfast (2399) and France (7359) who were aged 50 to 59 years, free of CHD at baseline (1991 to 1993) and followed over 5 years for CHD events (coronary death, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris). We compared the relative risks of CHD associated with the classic risk factors in PRIME with those in Framingham and PROCAM cohorts. We then compared the number of predicted and observed 5-year CHD events (calibration). Finally, we estimated the ability of the risk functions to separate high risk from low risk subjects (discrimination). The relative risk of CHD calculated for the various factors in the PRIME population were not statistically different from those published in the Framingham and PROCAM risk functions. The number of CHD events predicted by these risk functions however clearly overestimated those observed in Belfast and France. The two risk functions had a similar ability to separate high risk from low risk subjects in Belfast and France (c-statistic range: 0.61-0.68). CONCLUSION: The Framingham and PROCAM risk functions should not be used to estimate the absolute CHD risk of middle-aged men in Belfast and France without any CHD history because of a clear overestimation. Specific population risk functions are needed.
AIMS: To assess whether the Framingham and PROCAM risk functions were applicable to men in Belfast and France. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an external validation study within the PRIME (Prospective Epidemiological Study of Myocardial Infarction) cohort study. It comprised men recruited in Belfast (2399) and France (7359) who were aged 50 to 59 years, free of CHD at baseline (1991 to 1993) and followed over 5 years for CHD events (coronary death, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris). We compared the relative risks of CHD associated with the classic risk factors in PRIME with those in Framingham and PROCAM cohorts. We then compared the number of predicted and observed 5-year CHD events (calibration). Finally, we estimated the ability of the risk functions to separate high risk from low risk subjects (discrimination). The relative risk of CHD calculated for the various factors in the PRIME population were not statistically different from those published in the Framingham and PROCAM risk functions. The number of CHD events predicted by these risk functions however clearly overestimated those observed in Belfast and France. The two risk functions had a similar ability to separate high risk from low risk subjects in Belfast and France (c-statistic range: 0.61-0.68). CONCLUSION: The Framingham and PROCAM risk functions should not be used to estimate the absolute CHD risk of middle-aged men in Belfast and France without any CHD history because of a clear overestimation. Specific population risk functions are needed.
Authors: Dele O Abegunde; Bakuti Shengelia; Anne Luyten; Alexandra Cameron; Francesca Celletti; Sania Nishtar; Vasu Pandurangi; Shanthi Mendis Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Caroline A Daly; Bianca De Stavola; Jose L Lopez Sendon; Luigi Tavazzi; Eric Boersma; Felicity Clemens; Nicholas Danchin; Francois Delahaye; Anselm Gitt; Desmond Julian; David Mulcahy; Witold Ruzyllo; Kristian Thygesen; Freek Verheugt; Kim M Fox Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-01-13
Authors: John A Batsis; Michael G Sarr; Maria L Collazo-Clavell; Randal J Thomas; Abel Romero-Corral; Virend K Somers; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 2.778