An independent external validation and evaluation of QRISK cardiovascular risk prediction: a prospective open cohort study

Objective To independently evaluate the performance of the QRISK score for predicting 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease in an independent UK cohort of patients from general practice and compare the performance with Framingham equations. Design Prospective open cohort study. Setting 274 practices from England and Wales contributing to the THIN database. Participants 1.07 million patients, registered between 1 January 1995 and 1 April 2006, aged 35-74 years (5.4 million person years) with 43 990 cardiovascular events. Main outcome measures First diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke, and transient ischaemic attack) recorded in general practice records. Results This independent validation indicated that QRISK offers an improved performance in predicting the 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease in a large cohort of UK patients over the Anderson Framingham equation. Discrimination and calibration statistics were better with QRISK. QRISK explained 32% of the variation in men and 37% in women, compared with 27% and 31% respectively for Anderson Framingham. QRISK underpredicted risk by 13% for men and 10% for women, whereas Anderson Framingham overpredicted risk by 32% for men and 10% for women. In total, 85 010 (8%) of patients would be reclassified from high risk (≥20%) with Anderson Framingham to low risk with QRISK, with an observed 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 17.5% (95% confidence interval 16.9% to 18.1%) for men and 16.8% (15.7% to 18.0%) for women. The incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events among men was 30.5 per 1000 person years (95% confidence interval 29.9 to 31.2) in high risk patients identified with QRISK and 23.7 per 1000 person years (23.2 to 24.1) in high risk patients identified with Anderson Framingham. Similarly, the incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events among women was 26.7 per 1000 person years (25.8 to 27.7) in high risk patients identified with QRISK compared with 22.2 per 1000 person years (21.4 to 23.0) in high risk patients identified with Anderson Framingham. Conclusions The QRISK cardiovascular disease risk equation offers an improvement over the long established Anderson Framingham equation in terms of identifying a high risk population for cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom. QRISK underestimates 10 year cardiovascular disease risk, but the magnitude of underprediction is smaller than the overprediction with Anderson Framingham.

[1]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Empirical Model‐Building and Response Surfaces , 1988 .

[2]  K. Anderson,et al.  Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. , 1991, American heart journal.

[3]  J. Wyatt,et al.  Commentary: Prognostic models: clinically useful or quickly forgotten? , 1995 .

[4]  M. Woodward,et al.  Comparison of the prediction by 27 different factors of coronary heart disease and death in men and women of the Scottish heart health study: cohort study , 1997, BMJ.

[5]  P Royston,et al.  The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. , 1999, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  D G Altman,et al.  What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  D E Grobbee,et al.  External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Tom Fahey,et al.  Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men:prospective cohort study , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Parental cardiovascular disease as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in middle-aged adults: a prospective study of parents and offspring , 2004 .

[10]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  Risk of complications of pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes: nationwide prospective study in the Netherlands , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Patrick Royston,et al.  A new measure of prognostic separation in survival data , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Explained Variation for Survival Models , 2006 .

[13]  M. Woodward,et al.  By neglecting deprivation, cardiovascular risk scoring will exacerbate social gradients in disease , 2005, Heart.

[14]  T Fahey,et al.  Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review , 2006, Heart.

[15]  M. Woodward,et al.  Adding social deprivation and family history to cardiovascular risk assessment: the ASSIGN score from the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC) , 2005, Heart.

[16]  P. Toth Making a case for quantitative assessment of cardiovascular risk. , 2007, Journal of clinical lipidology.

[17]  J. Hippisley-Cox,et al.  Performance of the QRISK cardiovascular risk prediction algorithm in an independent UK sample of patients from general practice: a validation study , 2007, Heart.

[18]  J. Hippisley-Cox,et al.  Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  A. Sheikh,et al.  Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2 , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  M. Pencina,et al.  General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care: The Framingham Heart Study , 2008, Circulation.

[21]  J. Robson,et al.  Lipid modification: cardiovascular risk assessment and the modification of blood lipids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease , 2007, Heart.

[22]  R. Perera,et al.  Estimated 10‐year cardiovascular risk in a British population: results of a national screening project , 2008, International journal of clinical practice.

[23]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.