Thomas A Gaziano1, Shafika Abrahams-Gessel2, Sartaj Alam2, Dewan Alam3, Mohammed Ali4, Gerald Bloomfield5, Rodrigo M Carrillo-Larco6, Prabhakaran Dorairaj7, Laura Gutierrez8, Vilma Irazola8, Naomi S Levitt9, J Jaime Miranda10, Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz6, Ankur Pandya2, Adolfo Rubinstein8, Krisela Steyn11, Denis Xavier12, Lijing L Yan13. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: tgaziano@partners.org. 2. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Boston, MA, USA. 3. Centre for Global Health Research, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Centre for Chronic Disease Control, Gurgaon, India. 5. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 6. CRONICAS Center of Excellence for Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 7. Centre for Chronic Disease Control, Gurgaon, India; Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, India. 8. Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 9. Chronic Disease Initiative for Africa, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; Division of Diabetic Medicine and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 10. CRONICAS Center of Excellence for Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 11. Chronic Disease Initiative for Africa, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 12. St. John's Medical College and Research Institute, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India. 13. The George Institute for Global Health at Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China; Duke Global Health Institute, Global Health Research Center, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cost-effective primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and middle-income countries requires accurate risk assessment. Laboratory-based risk tools currently used in high-income countries are relatively expensive and impractical in many settings due to lack of facilities. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the correlation between a non-laboratory-based risk tool and 4 commonly used, laboratory-based risk scores in 7 countries representing nearly one-half of the world's population. METHODS: We calculated 10-year CVD risk scores for 47,466 persons with cross-sectional data collected from 16 different cohorts in 9 countries. The performance of the non-laboratory-based risk score was compared with 4 laboratory-based risk scores: Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (ASCVD [Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease]), Framingham, and SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) for high- and low-risk countries. Rankings of each score were compared using Spearman rank correlations. Based on these correlations, we measured concordance between individual absolute CVD risk as measured by the Harvard NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) risk score, and the 4 laboratory-based risk scores, using both the conventional Framingham risk thresholds of >20% and the recent ASCVD guideline threshold of >7.5%. RESULTS: The aggregate Spearman rank correlations between the non-laboratory-based risk score and the laboratory-based scores ranged from 0.915 to 0.979 for women and from 0.923 to 0.970 for men. When applying the conventional Framingham risk threshold of >20% over 10 years, 92.7% to 96.0% of women and 88.3% to 92.8% of men were equivalently characterized as "high" or "low" risk. Applying the recent ASCVD guidelines risk threshold of >7.5% resulted in risk characterization agreement for women ranging from 88.1% to 94.4% and from 89.0% to 93.7% for men. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk scores is very high for both men and women. Potentially large numbers of high-risk individuals could be detected with relatively simple tools.
BACKGROUND: Cost-effective primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and middle-income countries requires accurate risk assessment. Laboratory-based risk tools currently used in high-income countries are relatively expensive and impractical in many settings due to lack of facilities. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the correlation between a non-laboratory-based risk tool and 4 commonly used, laboratory-based risk scores in 7 countries representing nearly one-half of the world's population. METHODS: We calculated 10-year CVD risk scores for 47,466 persons with cross-sectional data collected from 16 different cohorts in 9 countries. The performance of the non-laboratory-based risk score was compared with 4 laboratory-based risk scores: Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (ASCVD [Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease]), Framingham, and SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) for high- and low-risk countries. Rankings of each score were compared using Spearman rank correlations. Based on these correlations, we measured concordance between individual absolute CVD risk as measured by the Harvard NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) risk score, and the 4 laboratory-based risk scores, using both the conventional Framingham risk thresholds of >20% and the recent ASCVD guideline threshold of >7.5%. RESULTS: The aggregate Spearman rank correlations between the non-laboratory-based risk score and the laboratory-based scores ranged from 0.915 to 0.979 for women and from 0.923 to 0.970 for men. When applying the conventional Framingham risk threshold of >20% over 10 years, 92.7% to 96.0% of women and 88.3% to 92.8% of men were equivalently characterized as "high" or "low" risk. Applying the recent ASCVD guidelines risk threshold of >7.5% resulted in risk characterization agreement for women ranging from 88.1% to 94.4% and from 89.0% to 93.7% for men. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk scores is very high for both men and women. Potentially large numbers of high-risk individuals could be detected with relatively simple tools.
Authors: Anthony N Muiru; Prossy Bibangambah; Linda Hemphill; Ruth Sentongo; June-Ho Kim; Virginia A Triant; David R Bangsberg; Alexander C Tsai; Jeffrey N Martin; Jessica E Haberer; Yap Boum; Jorge Plutzky; Peter W Hunt; Samson Okello; Mark J Siedner Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Matthew J Feinstein; Milana Bogorodskaya; Gerald S Bloomfield; Rajesh Vedanthan; Mark J Siedner; Gene F Kwan; Christopher T Longenecker Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Jaime Ruiz-Tovar; Miguel Angel Carbajo; Jose Maria Jimenez; Maria Jose Castro; Gilberto Gonzalez; Javier Ortiz-de-Solorzano; Lorea Zubiaga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Peter Ueda; Mark Woodward; Yuan Lu; Kaveh Hajifathalian; Rihab Al-Wotayan; Carlos A Aguilar-Salinas; Alireza Ahmadvand; Fereidoun Azizi; James Bentham; Renata Cifkova; Mariachiara Di Cesare; Louise Eriksen; Farshad Farzadfar; Trevor S Ferguson; Nayu Ikeda; Davood Khalili; Young-Ho Khang; Vera Lanska; Luz León-Muñoz; Dianna J Magliano; Paula Margozzini; Kelias P Msyamboza; Gerald Mutungi; Kyungwon Oh; Sophal Oum; Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo; Rosalba Rojas-Martinez; Gonzalo Valdivia; Rainford Wilks; Jonathan E Shaw; Gretchen A Stevens; Janne S Tolstrup; Bin Zhou; Joshua A Salomon; Majid Ezzati; Goodarz Danaei Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Michael Aw; Benard Omondi Ochieng; Daniel Attambo; Danet Opot; James Aw; Stacy Francis; Michael T Hawkes Journal: Pathog Glob Health Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Julian T Hertz; Francis M Sakita; Godfrey L Kweka; Zak Loring; Nathan M Thielman; Gloria Temu; John A Bartlett Journal: Int Health Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 3.131
Authors: Julian T Hertz; Godfrey L Kweka; Gerald S Bloomfield; Alexander T Limkakeng; Zak Loring; Gloria Temu; Blandina T Mmbaga; Charles J Gerardo; Francis M Sakita Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2020-02-06