| 1. |
- Emerging Risk Factors, Collaboration, et al.
(författare)
-
The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration: analysis of individual data on lipid, inflammatory and other markers in over 1.1 million participants in 104 prospective studies of cardiovascular diseases
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Eur J Epidemiol. - 0393-2990. ; 22:12, s. 839-69
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many long-term prospective studies have reported on associations of cardiovascular diseases with circulating lipid markers and/or inflammatory markers. Studies have not, however, generally been designed to provide reliable estimates under different circumstances and to correct for within-person variability. The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration has established a central database on over 1.1 million participants from 104 prospective population-based studies, in which subsets have information on lipid and inflammatory markers, other characteristics, as well as major cardiovascular morbidity and cause-specific mortality. Information on repeat measurements on relevant characteristics has been collected in approximately 340,000 participants to enable estimation of and correction for within-person variability. Re-analysis of individual data will yield up to approximately 69,000 incident fatal or nonfatal first ever major cardiovascular outcomes recorded during about 11.7 million person years at risk. The primary analyses will involve age-specific regression models in people without known baseline cardiovascular disease in relation to fatal or nonfatal first ever coronary heart disease outcomes. This initiative will characterize more precisely and in greater detail than has previously been possible the shape and strength of the age- and sex-specific associations of several lipid and inflammatory markers with incident coronary heart disease outcomes (and, secondarily, with other incident cardiovascular outcomes) under a wide range of circumstances. It will, therefore, help to determine to what extent such associations are independent from possible confounding factors and to what extent such markers (separately and in combination) provide incremental predictive value.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Pennells, Lisa, et al.
(författare)
-
Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration : individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:7, s. 621-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after ‘recalibration’, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at ‘high’ 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29–39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22–24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44–51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37–39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
