Validation and comparison of cardiovascular risk prediction equations in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes

Author:

Liang Jingyuan1ORCID,Li Qianqian1ORCID,Fu Zhangping1ORCID,Liu Xiaofei1ORCID,Shen Peng2,Sun Yexiang2,Zhang Jingyi3,Lu Ping3,Lin Hongbo2,Tang Xun14ORCID,Gao Pei145ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University , 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191 , China

2. Department of Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion, Yinzhou District Centre for Disease Control and Prevention , Ningbo , China

3. Department of Medical Big Data, Wonders Information Co. Ltd , Shanghai , China

4. Key Laboratory of Epidemiology of Major Diseases (Peking University), Ministry of Education , Beijing , China

5. Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University , Beijing , China

Abstract

Abstract Aims For patients with diabetes, the European guidelines updated the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction recommendations using diabetes-specific models with age-specific cut-offs, whereas American guidelines still advise models derived from the general population. We aimed to compare the performance of four cardiovascular risk models in diabetes populations. Methods and results Patients with diabetes from the CHERRY study, an electronic health records-based cohort study in China, were identified. Five-year CVD risk was calculated using original and recalibrated diabetes-specific models [Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) and the Hong Kong cardiovascular risk model (HK)] and general population-based models [Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) and Prediction for Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Risk in China (China-PAR)]. During a median 5.8-year follow-up, 46 558 patients had 2605 CVD events. C-statistics were 0.711 [95% confidence interval: 0.693–0.729] for ADVANCE and 0.701 (0.683–0.719) for HK in men, and 0.742 (0.725–0.759) and 0.732 (0.718–0.747) in women. C-statistics were worse in two general population-based models. Recalibrated ADVANCE underestimated risk by 1.2% and 16.8% in men and women, whereas PCE underestimated risk by 41.9% and 24.2% in men and women. With the age-specific cut-offs, the overlap of the high-risk patients selected by every model pair ranged from only 22.6% to 51.2%. When utilizing the fixed cut-off at 5%, the recalibrated ADVANCE selected similar high-risk patients in men (7400) as compared to the age-specific cut-offs (7102), whereas age-specific cut-offs exhibited a reduction in the selection of high-risk patients in women (2646 under age-specific cut-offs vs. 3647 under fixed cut-off). Conclusion Diabetes-specific CVD risk prediction models showed better discrimination for patients with diabetes. High-risk patients selected by different models varied significantly. Age-specific cut-offs selected fewer patients at high CVD risk especially in women.

Funder

National Key Research and Development Program of China

National Natural Science Foundation of China

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Epidemiology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3