Performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Risk Engine and the Framingham Risk Equations in Estimating Cardiovascular Disease in the EPIC- Norfolk Cohort
Open Access
- 29 December 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Diabetes Association in Diabetes Care
- Vol. 32 (4) , 708-713
- https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1918
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine (version 3) and the Framingham risk equations (2008) in estimating cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence in three populations: 1) individuals with known diabetes; 2) individuals with nondiabetic hyperglycemia, defined as A1C ≥6.0%; and 3) individuals with normoglycemia defined as A1C <6.0%. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a population-based prospective cohort (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk). Participants aged 40–79 years recruited from U.K. general practices attended a health examination (1993–1998) and were followed for CVD events/death until April 2007. CVD risk estimates were calculated for 10,137 individuals. RESULTS: Over 10.1 years, there were 69 CVD events in the diabetes group (25.4%), 160 in the hyperglycemia group (17.7%), and 732 in the normoglycemia group (8.2%). Estimated CVD 10-year risk in the diabetes group was 33 and 37% using the UKPDS and Framingham equations, respectively. In the hyperglycemia group, estimated CVD risks were 31 and 22%, respectively, and for the normoglycemia group risks were 20 and 14%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the ability of the risk equations to discriminate between individuals at different risk of CVD events in each subgroup; both equations overestimated CVD risk. The Framingham equations performed better in the hyperglycemia and normoglycemia groups as they did not overestimate risk as much as the UKPDS Risk Engine, and they classified more participants correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Both the UKPDS Risk Engine and Framingham risk equations were moderately effective at ranking individuals and are therefore suitable for resource prioritization. However, both overestimated true risk, which is important when one is using scores to communicate prognostic information to individuals.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary CareCirculation, 2008
- The impact of individualised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimates and lifestyle advice on physical activity in individuals at high risk of CVD: a pilot 2 × 2 factorial understanding risk trialCardiovascular Diabetology, 2008
- Comments on ‘Integrated discrimination and net reclassification improvements—Practical advice’Statistics in Medicine, 2007
- Computer Modeling of Diabetes and Its ComplicationsDiabetes Care, 2007
- Framingham, SCORE, and DECODE Risk Equations Do Not Provide Reliable Cardiovascular Risk Estimates in Type 2 DiabetesDiabetes Care, 2007
- Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic reviewHeart, 2006
- Cardiovascular risk estimation: important but may be inaccurateBMJ, 2006
- Framingham risk equations underestimate coronary heart disease risk in diabetesDiabetic Medicine, 2005
- Evaluating the performance of the Framingham risk equations in a population with diabetesDiabetic Medicine, 2004