Sridharan Raghavan1,2,3, Yuk-Lam Ho4, Jason L Vassy4,5,6, Daniel Posner4, Jacqueline Honerlaw4, Lauren Costa4, Lawrence S Phillips7,8, David R Gagnon4,9, Peter W F Wilson7,10, Kelly Cho4,5,11. 1. Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Aurora, CO (S.R.). 2. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (S.R.). 3. Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Consortium, Aurora, CO (S.R.). 4. Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, MA (Y.-L.H., J.L.V., D.P., J.H., L.C., D.R.G., K.C.). 5. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (J.L.V., K.C.). 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women 's Hospital, Boston, MA. (J.L.V.). 7. Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, GA (L.S.P., P.W.F.W.). 8. Division of Endocrinology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. (L.S.P.). 9. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, MA (D.R.G.). 10. Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. (P.W.F.W.). 11. Division of Aging, Brigham and Women 's Hospital, Boston, MA. (K.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimated 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in diabetes mellitus patients is used to guide primary prevention, but the performance of risk estimators (2013 Pooled Cohort Equations [PCE] and Risk Equations for Complications of Diabetes [RECODe]) varies across populations. Data from electronic health records could be used to improve risk estimation for a health system's patients. We aimed to evaluate risk equations for initial ASCVD events in US veterans with diabetes mellitus and improve model performance in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 183 096 adults with diabetes mellitus and without prior ASCVD who received care in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA) from 2002 to 2016 with mean follow-up of 4.6 years. We evaluated model discrimination, using Harrell's C statistic, and calibration, using the reclassification χ2 test, of the PCE and RECODe equations to predict fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke and cardiovascular mortality. We then tested whether model performance was affected by deriving VA-specific β-coefficients. Discrimination of ASCVD events by the PCE was improved by deriving VA-specific β-coefficients (C statistic increased from 0.560 to 0.597) and improved further by including measures of glycemia, renal function, and diabetes mellitus treatment (C statistic, 0.632). Discrimination by the RECODe equations was improved by substituting VA-specific coefficients (C statistic increased from 0.604 to 0.621). Absolute risk estimation by PCE and RECODe equations also improved with VA-specific coefficients; the calibration P increased from <0.001 to 0.08 for PCE and from <0.001 to 0.005 for RECODe, where higher P indicates better calibration. Approximately two-thirds of veterans would meet a guideline indication for high-intensity statin therapy based on the PCE versus only 10% to 15% using VA-fitted models. CONCLUSIONS: Existing ASCVD risk equations overestimate risk in veterans with diabetes mellitus, potentially impacting guideline-indicated statin therapy. Prediction model performance can be improved for a health system's patients using readily available electronic health record data.
BACKGROUND: Estimated 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in diabetes mellitus patients is used to guide primary prevention, but the performance of risk estimators (2013 Pooled Cohort Equations [PCE] and Risk Equations for Complications of Diabetes [RECODe]) varies across populations. Data from electronic health records could be used to improve risk estimation for a health system's patients. We aimed to evaluate risk equations for initial ASCVD events in US veterans with diabetes mellitus and improve model performance in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 183 096 adults with diabetes mellitus and without prior ASCVD who received care in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA) from 2002 to 2016 with mean follow-up of 4.6 years. We evaluated model discrimination, using Harrell's C statistic, and calibration, using the reclassification χ2 test, of the PCE and RECODe equations to predict fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke and cardiovascular mortality. We then tested whether model performance was affected by deriving VA-specific β-coefficients. Discrimination of ASCVD events by the PCE was improved by deriving VA-specific β-coefficients (C statistic increased from 0.560 to 0.597) and improved further by including measures of glycemia, renal function, and diabetes mellitus treatment (C statistic, 0.632). Discrimination by the RECODe equations was improved by substituting VA-specific coefficients (C statistic increased from 0.604 to 0.621). Absolute risk estimation by PCE and RECODe equations also improved with VA-specific coefficients; the calibration P increased from <0.001 to 0.08 for PCE and from <0.001 to 0.005 for RECODe, where higher P indicates better calibration. Approximately two-thirds of veterans would meet a guideline indication for high-intensity statin therapy based on the PCE versus only 10% to 15% using VA-fitted models. CONCLUSIONS: Existing ASCVD risk equations overestimate risk in veterans with diabetes mellitus, potentially impacting guideline-indicated statin therapy. Prediction model performance can be improved for a health system's patients using readily available electronic health record data.
Authors: Paul Muntner; Lisandro D Colantonio; Mary Cushman; David C Goff; George Howard; Virginia J Howard; Brett Kissela; Emily B Levitan; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Monika M Safford Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Romana Pylypchuk; Sue Wells; Andrew Kerr; Katrina Poppe; Tania Riddell; Matire Harwood; Dan Exeter; Suneela Mehta; Corina Grey; Billy P Wu; Patricia Metcalf; Jim Warren; Jeff Harrison; Roger Marshall; Rod Jackson Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rury R Holman; M Angelyn Bethel; Robert J Mentz; Vivian P Thompson; Yuliya Lokhnygina; John B Buse; Juliana C Chan; Jasmine Choi; Stephanie M Gustavson; Nayyar Iqbal; Aldo P Maggioni; Steven P Marso; Peter Öhman; Neha J Pagidipati; Neil Poulter; Ambady Ramachandran; Bernard Zinman; Adrian F Hernandez Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Yiling J Cheng; Meera Srinivasan; Ji Lin; Linda S Geiss; Ann L Albright; Giuseppina Imperatore Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Mohammed K Ali; Kai McKeever Bullard; Jinan B Saaddine; Catherine C Cowie; Giuseppina Imperatore; Edward W Gregg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391