Laboratory and non-laboratory-based risk prediction models for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: the LIPID study.

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
European journal of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation: official journal of the European Society of Cardiology, Working Groups on Epidemiology & Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology (Impact Factor: 3.69). 10/2009; 16(6):660-8. DOI: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832f3b2b
Source: PubMed


The aims of this study were to examine whether risk prediction models for recurrent cardiovascular disease (CVD) events have prognostic value, and to particularly examine the performance of those models based on non-laboratory data. We also aimed to construct a risk chart based on the risk factors that showed the strongest relationship with CVD.
Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate a risk score for each recurrent event in a CVD patient who was enrolled in a very large randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients were then classified into groups according to quintiles of their risk score. These risk models were validated by calibration and discrimination analyses based on data from patients recruited in New Zealand for the same study. Non-laboratory-based risk factors, such as age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, angina grade, history of myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, diabetes or hypertension and treatment with pravastatin, were found to be significantly associated with the risk of developing a recurrent CVD event. Patients who were classified into the medium and high-risk groups had two-fold and four-fold the risk of developing a CVD event compared with those in the low-risk group, respectively. The risk prediction models also fitted New Zealand data well after recalibration.
A simpler non-laboratory-based risk prediction model performed equally as well as the more comprehensive laboratory-based risk prediction models. The risk chart based on the further simplified Score Model may provide a useful tool for clinical cardiologists to assess an individual patient's risk for recurrent CVD events.

5 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many risk prediction models have been developed for cardiovascular diseases in different countries during the past three decades. However, there has not been consistent agreement regarding how to appropriately assess a risk prediction model, especially when new markers are added to an established risk prediction model. Researchers often use the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) to assess the discriminatory ability of a risk prediction model. However, recent studies suggest that this method has serious limitations and cannot be the sole approach to evaluate the usefulness of a new marker in clinical and epidemiological studies. To overcome the shortcomings of this traditional method, new assessment methods have been proposed. The aim of this article is to overview various risk prediction models for cardiovascular diseases, to describe the receiver operating characteristic curve method and discuss some new assessment methods proposed recently. Some of the methods were illustrated with figures from a cardiovascular disease study in Australia.
    Annals of epidemiology 08/2009; 19(10):711-7. DOI:10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.05.005 · 2.00 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular disease remains the primary cause of mortality and morbidity in the developed world. Risk scores can provide clinical risk stratification and many exist for use in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. Cardiovascular risk scores predict mortality, coronary heart disease and other vascular disease using risk predictors such as patient age, sex, BMI, smoking history, cholesterol level, blood pressure, glucose level or diabetes diagnosis, family history of cardiovascular disease and creatinine. While the risk scores in existence are excellent for risk stratification, actual use in a clinical environment is lagging behind the rate of new risk score creation. Future research should focus on how to utilize risk scores most effectively and efficiently in clinical practice.
    Future Cardiology 09/2012; 8(5):765-78. DOI:10.2217/fca.12.49
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background/objectives: Data are limited on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models that include dietary predictors. Using known risk factors and dietary information, we constructed and evaluated CVD risk prediction models. Subjects/methods: Data for modeling were from population-based prospective cohort studies comprised of 9026 men and women aged 40-69 years. At baseline, all were free of known CVD and cancer, and were followed up for CVD incidence during an 8-year period. We used Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to construct a traditional risk factor model, an office-based model, and two diet-containing models and evaluated these models by calculating Akaike information criterion (AIC), C-statistics, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and calibration statistic. Results: We constructed diet-containing models with significant dietary predictors such as poultry, legumes, carbonated soft drinks or green tea consumption. Adding dietary predictors to the traditional model yielded a decrease in AIC (delta AIC=15), a 53% increase in relative IDI (P-value for IDI <0.001) and an increase in NRI (category-free NRI=0.14, P <0.001). The simplified diet-containing model also showed a decrease in AIC (delta AIC=14), a 38% increase in relative IDI (P-value for IDI <0.001) and an increase in NRI (category-free NRI=0.08, P<0.01) compared with the office-based model. The calibration plots for risk prediction demonstrated that the inclusion of dietary predictors contributes to better agreement in persons at high risk for CVD. C-statistics for the four models were acceptable and comparable. Conclusions: We suggest that dietary information may be useful in constructing CVD risk prediction models.
    European journal of clinical nutrition 11/2012; 67(1). DOI:10.1038/ejcn.2012.175 · 2.71 Impact Factor
Show more