91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and validation of QRISK3 risk prediction algorithms to estimate future risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study

      research-article
      1 , , 1 , 2
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      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

          Objectives To develop and validate updated QRISK3 prediction algorithms to estimate the 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease in women and men accounting for potential new risk factors.

          Design Prospective open cohort study.

          Setting General practices in England providing data for the QResearch database.

          Participants 1309 QResearch general practices in England: 981 practices were used to develop the scores and a separate set of 328 practices were used to validate the scores. 7.89 million patients aged 25-84 years were in the derivation cohort and 2.67 million patients in the validation cohort. Patients were free of cardiovascular disease and not prescribed statins at baseline.

          Methods Cox proportional hazards models in the derivation cohort to derive separate risk equations in men and women for evaluation at 10 years. Risk factors considered included those already in QRISK2 (age, ethnicity, deprivation, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, total cholesterol: high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, smoking, family history of coronary heart disease in a first degree relative aged less than 60 years, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, treated hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (stage 4 or 5)) and new risk factors (chronic kidney disease (stage 3, 4, or 5), a measure of systolic blood pressure variability (standard deviation of repeated measures), migraine, corticosteroids, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), atypical antipsychotics, severe mental illness, and HIV/AIDs). We also considered erectile dysfunction diagnosis or treatment in men. Measures of calibration and discrimination were determined in the validation cohort for men and women separately and for individual subgroups by age group, ethnicity, and baseline disease status.

          Main outcome measures Incident cardiovascular disease recorded on any of the following three linked data sources: general practice, mortality, or hospital admission records.

          Results 363 565 incident cases of cardiovascular disease were identified in the derivation cohort during follow-up arising from 50.8 million person years of observation. All new risk factors considered met the model inclusion criteria except for HIV/AIDS, which was not statistically significant. The models had good calibration and high levels of explained variation and discrimination. In women, the algorithm explained 59.6% of the variation in time to diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (R 2, with higher values indicating more variation), and the D statistic was 2.48 and Harrell’s C statistic was 0.88 (both measures of discrimination, with higher values indicating better discrimination). The corresponding values for men were 54.8%, 2.26, and 0.86. Overall performance of the updated QRISK3 algorithms was similar to the QRISK2 algorithms.

          Conclusion Updated QRISK3 risk prediction models were developed and validated. The inclusion of additional clinical variables in QRISK3 (chronic kidney disease, a measure of systolic blood pressure variability (standard deviation of repeated measures), migraine, corticosteroids, SLE, atypical antipsychotics, severe mental illness, and erectile dysfunction) can help enable doctors to identify those at most risk of heart disease and stroke.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

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

          Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

          Statistical procedures for missing data have vastly improved, yet misconception and unsound practice still abound. The authors frame the missing-data problem, review methods, offer advice, and raise issues that remain unresolved. They clear up common misunderstandings regarding the missing at random (MAR) concept. They summarize the evidence against older procedures and, with few exceptions, discourage their use. They present, in both technical and practical language, 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI). Newer developments are discussed, including some for dealing with missing data that are not MAR. Although not yet in the mainstream, these procedures may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred.

            Epidemiologic studies commonly estimate associations between predictors (risk factors) and outcome. Most software automatically exclude subjects with missing values. This commonly causes bias because missing values seldom occur completely at random (MCAR) but rather selectively based on other (observed) variables, missing at random (MAR). Multiple imputation (MI) of missing predictor values using all observed information including outcome is advocated to deal with selective missing values. This seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. We tested this hypothesis using data from a study on diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We selected five predictors of pulmonary embolism without missing values. Their regression coefficients and standard errors (SEs) estimated from the original sample were considered as "true" values. We assigned missing values to these predictors--both MCAR and MAR--and repeated this 1,000 times using simulations. Per simulation we multiple imputed the missing values without and with the outcome, and compared the regression coefficients and SEs to the truth. Regression coefficients based on MI including outcome were close to the truth. MI without outcome yielded very biased--underestimated--coefficients. SEs and coverage of the 90% confidence intervals were not different between MI with and without outcome. Results were the same for MCAR and MAR. For all types of missing values, imputation of missing predictor values using the outcome is preferred over imputation without outcome and is no self-fulfilling prophecy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

              Objective To systematically review studies quantifying the associations of long term (clinic), mid-term (home), and short term (ambulatory) variability in blood pressure, independent of mean blood pressure, with cardiovascular disease events and mortality. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Web of Science, searched to 15 February 2016 for full text articles in English. Eligibility criteria for study selection Prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in adults, except those in patients receiving haemodialysis, where the condition may directly impact blood pressure variability. Standardised hazard ratios were extracted and, if there was little risk of confounding, combined using random effects meta-analysis in main analyses. Outcomes included all cause and cardiovascular disease mortality and cardiovascular disease events. Measures of variability included standard deviation, coefficient of variation, variation independent of mean, and average real variability, but not night dipping or day-night variation. Results 41 papers representing 19 observational cohort studies and 17 clinical trial cohorts, comprising 46 separate analyses were identified. Long term variability in blood pressure was studied in 24 papers, mid-term in four, and short-term in 15 (two studied both long term and short term variability). Results from 23 analyses were excluded from main analyses owing to high risks of confounding. Increased long term variability in systolic blood pressure was associated with risk of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.22), cardiovascular disease mortality (1.18, 1.09 to 1.28), cardiovascular disease events (1.18, 1.07 to 1.30), coronary heart disease (1.10, 1.04 to 1.16), and stroke (1.15, 1.04 to 1.27). Increased mid-term and short term variability in daytime systolic blood pressure were also associated with all cause mortality (1.15, 1.06 to 1.26 and 1.10, 1.04 to 1.16, respectively). Conclusions Long term variability in blood pressure is associated with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes, over and above the effect of mean blood pressure. Associations are similar in magnitude to those of cholesterol measures with cardiovascular disease. Limited data for mid-term and short term variability showed similar associations. Future work should focus on the clinical implications of assessment of variability in blood pressure and avoid the common confounding pitfalls observed to date. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014015695.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor of clinical epidemiology and general practice
                Role: professor of medical statistics in primary care
                Role: evaluation and implementation theme lead, NIHR CLAHRC West
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2017
                24 May 2017
                : 357
                : j2099
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Primary Care, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD, UK
                [2 ]Bristol Primary Clinical Commissioning Group and The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, UK, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J Hippisley-Cox julia.hippisley-cox@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Article
                hipj036510
                10.1136/bmj.j2099
                5441081
                28536104
                c682f04d-5ec1-4e8c-9954-5ca6656cc939
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 21 April 2017
                Categories
                Research
                1302

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article