72
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Derivation, validation, and evaluation of a new QRISK model to estimate lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease: cohort study using QResearch database

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To develop, validate, and evaluate a new QRISK model to estimate lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease.

          Design Prospective cohort study with routinely collected data from general practice. Cox proportional hazards models in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations accounting for competing risks. Measures of calibration and discrimination in the validation cohort.

          Setting 563 general practices in England and Wales contributing to the QResearch database.

          Subjects Patients aged 30–84 years who were free of cardiovascular disease and not taking statins between 1 January 1994 and 30 April 2010: 2 343 759 in the derivation dataset, and 1 267 159 in the validation dataset.

          Main outcomes measures Individualised estimate of lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease accounting for smoking status, ethnic group, systolic blood pressure, ratio of total cholesterol:high density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, family history of coronary heart disease in first degree relative aged <60 years, Townsend deprivation score, treated hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic renal disease, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation. Age-sex centile values for lifetime cardiovascular risk compared with 10 year risk estimated using QRISK2 (2010).

          Results Across all the 1 267 159 patients in the validation dataset, the 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th centile values for lifetime risk were 31%, 39%, 50%, and 57% respectively. Of the 10% of patients in the validation cohort classified at highest risk with either the lifetime risk model or the 10 year risk model, only 18 385(14.5%) were at high risk on both measures. Patients identified as high risk with the lifetime risk approach were more likely to be younger, male, from ethnic minority groups, and have a positive family history of premature coronary heart disease than those identified with the 10 year QRISK2 score. The lifetime risk calculator is available at www.qrisk.org/lifetime/.

          Conclusions Compared with using a 10 year QRISK2 score, a lifetime risk score will tend to identify patients for intervention at a younger age. Although lifestyle interventions at an earlier age could be advantageous, there would be small gains under the age of 65, and medical interventions carry risks as soon as they are initiated. Research is needed to examine closely the cost effectiveness and acceptability of such an approach.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary: Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (Constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            CIRCULATION

            SS Chugh (1964)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in middle-aged women and men: The Framingham Heart Study.

              The long-term risk for developing hypertension is best described by the lifetime risk statistic. The lifetime risk for hypertension and trends in this risk over time are unknown. To estimate the residual lifetime risk for hypertension in older US adults and to evaluate temporal trends in this risk. Community-based prospective cohort study of 1298 participants from the Framingham Heart Study who were aged 55 to 65 years and free of hypertension at baseline (1976-1998). Residual lifetime risk (lifetime cumulative incidence not adjusted for competing causes of mortality) for hypertension, defined as blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or greater or use of antihypertensive medications. The residual lifetime risks for developing hypertension and stage 1 high blood pressure or higher (greater-than-or-equal to 140/90 mm Hg regardless of treatment) were 90% in both 55- and 65-year-old participants. The lifetime probability of receiving antihypertensive medication was 60%. The risk for hypertension remained unchanged for women, but it was approximately 60% higher for men in the contemporary 1976-1998 period compared with an earlier 1952-1975 period. In contrast, the residual lifetime risk for stage 2 high blood pressure or higher (greater-than-or-equal to 160/100 mm Hg regardless of treatment) was considerably lower in both sexes in the recent period (35%-57% in 1952-1975 vs 35%-44% in 1976-1998), likely due to a marked increase in treatment of individuals with substantially elevated blood pressure. The residual lifetime risk for hypertension for middle-aged and elderly individuals is 90%, indicating a huge public health burden. Although the decline in lifetime risk for stage 2 high blood pressure or higher represents a major achievement, efforts should be directed at the primary prevention of hypertension.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor of clinical epidemiology and general practice
                Role: associate professor in medical statistics
                Role: senior lecturer general practice
                Role: research and evaluation programme director
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2010
                2010
                09 December 2010
                : 341
                : c6624
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Primary Care, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Health Sciences, Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 2AT, UK
                [3 ]Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, NHS Bristol, South Plaza, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Julia Hippisley-Cox juliahippisleycox@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                hipj813410
                10.1136/bmj.c6624
                2999889
                21148212
                b50f6027-cafc-4fb2-815b-7c631ed6ffe6
                © Hippisley-Cox et al 2010

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 15 November 2010
                Categories
                Research
                Smoking and Tobacco
                Health Policy
                Epidemiologic Studies
                Immunology (Including Allergy)
                Drugs: Cardiovascular System
                Hypertension
                Connective Tissue Disease
                Degenerative Joint Disease
                Musculoskeletal Syndromes
                Rheumatoid Arthritis
                Health Economics
                Health Service Research
                Diabetes
                Metabolic Disorders
                Health Education
                Health Promotion
                Smoking

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article