The Framingham Risk Function Underestimated Absolute Coronary Heart Disease Risk in Czech Men

Summary

Objectives: The aim was to validate the Framingham coronary heart disease (CHD) risk function with the formula by Wilson et al. (1998) in Czech men.

Methods: The validation was performed within the 20-year primary prevention study of atherosclerotic risk factors (STULONG) including 1417 middle-aged men from the Czech Republic (Prague). A total of 646 men examined in 1979-1988, and followed-up for ten years, were included into the validation study. The calibration and discrimination ability of the Framingham risk function in the Czech population were explored.

Results: The estimated 10-year risk of CHD by the Framingham risk function was 12.8% in 646 men, significantly higher than the observed risk (16.4 %), p = 0.013. The trend in the 10-year incidence of CHD was significantly increasing with quintiles of the estimated risk, p < 0.001. After the recalibration of the Framingham risk function, there was an insignificant difference between the estimated (18.2%) and observed (16.4%) risks of CHD, p = 0.320. The Framingham risk function classified men into those with and without CHD in the 10-year period with accuracy over 60%.

Conclusions: Unlike some validation studies from Western Europe, the Framingham risk function significantly underestimated the 10-year CHD risk in the Czech Republic. In agreement with these studies, the incidence of CHD was significantly increasing across quintiles of the estimated risk.

Keywords

External validation - Framingham risk function - coronary heart disease

• References

• 1 European cardiovascular disease statistics. British heart foundation; London: 2000
• 2 Deaths 2003.. Institute of health information and statistics of the Czech Republic,. Prague 2004
• 3 Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PWF. et al. Cardiovascular disease risk profile. Am Heart J 1991; 121: 293-8.
• 4 Anderson KM, Wilson PWF, Odell PM. et al. An updated coronary risk profile, a statement for health professionals. Circulation 1991; 83: 356-62.
• 5 Wilson PWF, D’Agostino RB, Levy D. et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factors categories. Circulation 1998; 97: 1837-47.
• 6 D’Agostino RB, Russell MW, Huse DM. et al. Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: New results from the Framingham Study. Am Heart J 2000; 139: 272-81.
• 7 D’Agostino RB, Sr Grundy S, Sullivan LM. et al. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease scores: results of a multiply ethnic groups investigation. JAMA 2001; 286: 180-7.
• 8 Thomsen TF, Davidsen M, Ibsen H. A new method for CHD prediction and prevention based on regional risk scores and randomized clinical trials; PRECARD and the Copenhagen Risk Score. J Cardiovasc Risk 2001; 8: 291-7.
• 9 Assmann G, Cullen P, Schulte H. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study. Circulation 2002; 105: 310-5.
• 10 Conroy RM, Pyöräla K, Fitzgerald AP. et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 987-1003.
• 11 Boudík F, Reissigová J, Hrach K, Tomeãková M, Bultas J, Anger Z, Aschermann M, Zvárová J. Primary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease Among Middle Aged Men in Prague: Twenty-Year Follow-up Results. Atherosclerosis 2006; 184: 86-93.
• 12 D’Agostino RB, Nam B-H. Evaluation of the Performance of Survival Analysis Models: Discrimination and Calibration Measures. In: Balakrishnan N, Rao CR. editors. Handbook of Statistics Volume 23: Advances in Survival Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004
• 13 Pencina MJ, D’ Agostino RB. Overall C as a measure of discrimination in survival analysis: model specific population value and confidence interval estimation. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2109-23.
• 14 Eng J. ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves. Version 1.0.2, March 2004 Web: http://www.rad.jhmi.edu/roc.
• 15 Coronary heart disease statistics. British Heart Foundation.; London: 2003
• 16 Czech Health Statistics Yearbook. 2002. Institute of health information and statistics of the Czech Republic,. Prague: 2003
• 17 Empana JP, Ducimetiere P, Arveiler D. et al. Are the Framingham and PROCAM coronary heart disease risk functions applicable to different European populations? The PRIME Study. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 1903-11.
• 18 Orford JL, Sesso HD, Stedman M. et al. A comparison of the Framingham and European Society of Cardiology coronary heart disease risk prediction models in the normative aging study. Am Heart J 2002; 144: 95-100.
• 19 Suka M, Sugimori H, Yoshida K. Validity of the Framingham risk model applied to Japanese men. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41: 213-5.
• 20 Menotti A, Puddu PE, Lanti M. Comparison of the Framingham risk function-based coronary chart with risk function from an Italian population study. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 348-50.
• 21 Bastuji-Garin S, Deverly A, Moyse D. et al. Intervention as a goal in hypertension treatment study group. J Hypertens 2002; 20: 1973-80.
• 22 Hense HW, Schulte H, Lowel H. et al. Framingham risk function overestimates risk of coronary heart disease in men and women from Germany – results from the MONICA Augsburg and the PROCAM cohorts. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 937-45.
• 23 Brindle P, Emberson J, Lampe F. et al. Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2003; 29 327: 1267.
• 24 Marrugat J, D’Agostino R, Sullivan L. et al. An adaptation of the Framingham coronary heart disease risk function to European Mediterranean areas. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57: 634-8.
• 25 Liu J, Hong Y, D’Agostino RB Sr, Wu Z. et al. Predictive value for the Chinese population of the Framingham CHD risk assessment tool compared with the Chinese Multi-Provincial Cohort Study. JAMA 2004; 291: 2591-9.