Peter Schofield1, Nicola Crichton, Rouling Chen. 1. Division of Health and Social Care Research, Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, UK. peter.1.schofield@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation methods when applied to a black UK population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 51 GP practices in Lambeth, south-east London. PATIENTS: 26,370 black and 52,288 white registered patients aged 40-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 10-year CVD risk score estimates derived using Framingham, QRISK2, ASSIGN and ETHRISK algorithms. κ measures of agreement between risk scores and age-adjusted black/white mean risk ratios (RR) derived for each score. RESULTS: There was a moderate agreement between the various risk scores for the black population (pooled κ 0.59 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.61) for men and 0.42 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.46) for women). For the white population, agreement was significantly improved (pooled κ 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.76) for men and 0.51 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.54) for women). Except for QRISK2, each method consistently overpredicted the CVD risk for the black population in comparison with national (Health Survey for England) prevalence figures. QRISK2 estimates were the least divergent from national data, giving a black/white mean RR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.74) for men and 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.87) for women. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of risk estimation method does make a difference to estimates of CVD risk for black patients. The QRISK2 method, which incorporates ethnicity as a risk factor, appears to have the best fit with national data for this population.
OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation methods when applied to a black UK population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 51 GP practices in Lambeth, south-east London. PATIENTS: 26,370 black and 52,288 white registered patients aged 40-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 10-year CVD risk score estimates derived using Framingham, QRISK2, ASSIGN and ETHRISK algorithms. κ measures of agreement between risk scores and age-adjusted black/white mean risk ratios (RR) derived for each score. RESULTS: There was a moderate agreement between the various risk scores for the black population (pooled κ 0.59 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.61) for men and 0.42 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.46) for women). For the white population, agreement was significantly improved (pooled κ 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.76) for men and 0.51 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.54) for women). Except for QRISK2, each method consistently overpredicted the CVD risk for the black population in comparison with national (Health Survey for England) prevalence figures. QRISK2 estimates were the least divergent from national data, giving a black/white mean RR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.74) for men and 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.87) for women. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of risk estimation method does make a difference to estimates of CVD risk for black patients. The QRISK2 method, which incorporates ethnicity as a risk factor, appears to have the best fit with national data for this population.
Authors: Rajesh Vedanthan; Jemima H Kamano; Hana Lee; Benjamin Andama; Gerald S Bloomfield; Allison K DeLong; David Edelman; Eric A Finkelstein; Joseph W Hogan; Carol R Horowitz; Simon Manyara; Diana Menya; Violet Naanyu; Sonak D Pastakia; Thomas W Valente; Cleophas C Wanyonyi; Valentin Fuster Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Rajesh Vedanthan; Jemima H Kamano; Stavroula A Chrysanthopoulou; Richard Mugo; Benjamin Andama; Gerald S Bloomfield; Cleophas W Chesoli; Allison K DeLong; David Edelman; Eric A Finkelstein; Carol R Horowitz; Simon Manyara; Diana Menya; Violet Naanyu; Vitalis Orango; Sonak D Pastakia; Thomas W Valente; Joseph W Hogan; Valentin Fuster Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 27.203
Authors: Soheir H Ahmed; Niki Marjerrison; Marte Karoline Råberg Kjøllesdal; Hein Stigum; Aung Soe Htet; Espen Bjertness; Haakon E Meyer; Ahmed A Madar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: J Das-Munshi; M Ashworth; F Gaughran; S Hull; C Morgan; J Nazroo; A Roberts; D Rose; P Schofield; R Stewart; G Thornicroft; M J Prince Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Therese Tillin; Alun D Hughes; Peter Whincup; Jamil Mayet; Naveed Sattar; Paul M McKeigue; Nish Chaturvedi Journal: Heart Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Tim Mercer; Benson Njuguna; Gerald S Bloomfield; Jonathan Dick; Eric Finkelstein; Jemima Kamano; Ann Mwangi; Violet Naanyu; Sonak D Pastakia; Thomas W Valente; Rajesh Vedanthan; Constantine Akwanalo Journal: Trials Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 2.279