Steve Yadlowsky1, Rodney A Hayward2, Jeremy B Sussman2, Robyn L McClelland3, Yuan-I Min4, Sanjay Basu5. 1. Stanford University, Stanford, California (S.Y.). 2. University of Michigan and Center for Clinical Management Research at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan (R.A.H., J.B.S.). 3. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (R.L.M.). 4. University of Mississippi Medical Center and Jackson Heart Study, Jackson, Mississippi (Y.M.). 5. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research and Center for Population Health Sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (S.B.).
Abstract
Background: The 2013 pooled cohort equations (PCEs) are central in prevention guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but can misestimate CVD risk. Objective: To improve the clinical accuracy of CVD risk prediction by revising the 2013 PCEs using newer data and statistical methods. Design: Derivation and validation of risk equations. Setting: Population-based. Participants: 26 689 adults aged 40 to 79 years without prior CVD from 6 U.S. cohorts. Measurements: Nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary heart disease, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. Results: The 2013 PCEs overestimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD by an average of 20% across risk groups. Misestimation of risk was particularly prominent among black adults, of whom 3.9 million (33% of eligible black persons) had extreme risk estimates (<70% or >250% those of white adults with otherwise-identical risk factor values). Updating these equations improved accuracy among all race and sex subgroups. Approximately 11.8 million U.S. adults previously labeled high-risk (10-year risk ≥7.5%) by the 2013 PCEs would be relabeled lower-risk by the updated equations. Limitations: Updating the 2013 PCEs with data from modern cohorts reduced the number of persons considered to be at high risk. Clinicians and patients should consider the potential benefits and harms of reducing the number of persons recommended aspirin, blood pressure, or statin therapy. Our findings also indicate that risk equations will generally become outdated over time and require routine updating. Conclusion: Revised PCEs can improve the accuracy of CVD risk estimates. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
Background: The 2013 pooled cohort equations (PCEs) are central in prevention guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but can misestimate CVD risk. Objective: To improve the clinical accuracy of CVD risk prediction by revising the 2013 PCEs using newer data and statistical methods. Design: Derivation and validation of risk equations. Setting: Population-based. Participants: 26 689 adults aged 40 to 79 years without prior CVD from 6 U.S. cohorts. Measurements: Nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary heart disease, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. Results: The 2013 PCEs overestimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD by an average of 20% across risk groups. Misestimation of risk was particularly prominent among black adults, of whom 3.9 million (33% of eligible black persons) had extreme risk estimates (<70% or >250% those of white adults with otherwise-identical risk factor values). Updating these equations improved accuracy among all race and sex subgroups. Approximately 11.8 million U.S. adults previously labeled high-risk (10-year risk ≥7.5%) by the 2013 PCEs would be relabeled lower-risk by the updated equations. Limitations: Updating the 2013 PCEs with data from modern cohorts reduced the number of persons considered to be at high risk. Clinicians and patients should consider the potential benefits and harms of reducing the number of persons recommended aspirin, blood pressure, or statin therapy. Our findings also indicate that risk equations will generally become outdated over time and require routine updating. Conclusion: Revised PCEs can improve the accuracy of CVD risk estimates. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
Authors: Kelsey A Vercammen; Alyssa J Moran; Amanda C McClain; Anne N Thorndike; Aarohee P Fulay; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alina M Allen; Terry M Therneau; Kristin C Mara; Joseph J Larson; Kymberly D Watt; Sharonne N Hayes; Patrick S Kamath Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Christopher M Haggerty; Brandon K Fornwalt; Alvaro E Ulloa Cerna; Linyuan Jing; Christopher W Good; David P vanMaanen; Sushravya Raghunath; Jonathan D Suever; Christopher D Nevius; Gregory J Wehner; Dustin N Hartzel; Joseph B Leader; Amro Alsaid; Aalpen A Patel; H Lester Kirchner; John M Pfeifer; Brendan J Carry; Marios S Pattichis Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Sanjay Basu; Jessica O'Neill; Edward Sayer; Maegan Petrie; Rochelle Bellin; Seth A Berkowitz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Samia Mora; Nanette K Wenger; Nancy R Cook; Jingmin Liu; Barbara V Howard; Marian C Limacher; Simin Liu; Karen L Margolis; Lisa W Martin; Nina P Paynter; Paul M Ridker; Jennifer G Robinson; Jacques E Rossouw; Monika M Safford; JoAnn E Manson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Joshua Elliott; Barbara Bodinier; Tom A Bond; Marc Chadeau-Hyam; Evangelos Evangelou; Karel G M Moons; Abbas Dehghan; David C Muller; Paul Elliott; Ioanna Tzoulaki Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas F Monaghan; Connelly D Miller; Christina W Agudelo; Syed N Rahman; Karel Everaert; Lori A Birder; Alan J Wein; Jeffrey P Weiss; Jason M Lazar Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Jarrod E Dalton; Michael B Rothberg; Neal V Dawson; Nikolas I Krieger; David A Zidar; Adam T Perzynski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 5.562