Comparison of the Framingham Risk Score, SCORE and WHO/ISH cardiovascular risk prediction models in an Asian population

BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to identify and treat high-risk populations, and to communicate risk effectively. We assessed the validity and utility of four cardiovascular risk-prediction models in an Asian population of a middle-income country.
METHODS:Data from a national population-based survey of 14,863 participants aged 40 to 65 years, with a follow-up duration of 73,277 person-years was used. The Framingham Risk Score (FRS), SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation)-high and -low cardiovascular-risk regions and the World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) models were assessed. The outcome of interest was 5-year cardiovascular mortality. Discrimination was assessed for all models and calibration for the SCORE models.
RESULTS:Cardiovascular risk factors were highly prevalent; smoking 20%, obesity 32%, hypertension 55%, diabetes mellitus 18% and hypercholesterolemia 34%. The FRS and SCORE models showed good agreement in risk stratification. The FRS, SCORE-high and -low models showed good discrimination for cardiovascular mortality, areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were 0.768, 0.774 and 0.775 respectively. The WHO/ISH model showed poor discrimination, AUC=0.613. Calibration of the SCORE-high model was graphically and statistically acceptable for men (χ(2) goodness-of-fit, p=0.097). The SCORE-low model was statistically acceptable for men (χ(2) goodness-of-fit, p=0.067). Both SCORE-models underestimated risk in women (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS:The FRS and SCORE-high models, but not the WHO/ISH model can be used to identify high cardiovascular risk in the Malaysian population. The SCORE-high model predicts risk accurately in men but underestimated it in women.
KEYWORDS:Cardiovascular disease prevention; Mortality; Risk prediction; Risk score; Validation