| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Gregson, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiovascular Risk Factors Associated With Venous Thromboembolism
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA Cardiology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0965-2590 .- 2380-6583 .- 2380-6591. ; 4:2, s. 163-173
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE It is uncertain to what extent established cardiovascular risk factors are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE To estimate the associations of major cardiovascular risk factors with VTE, ie, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study included individual participant data mostly from essentially population-based cohort studies from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (ERFC; 731728 participants; 75 cohorts; years of baseline surveys, February 1960 to June 2008; latest date of follow-up, December 2015) and the UK Biobank (421537 participants; years of baseline surveys, March 2006 to September 2010; latest date of follow-up, February 2016). Participants without cardiovascular disease at baseline were included. Data were analyzed from June 2017 to September 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Hazard ratios (HRs) per 1-SD higher usual risk factor levels (or presence/absence). Incident fatal outcomes in ERFC (VTE, 1041; coronary heart disease [CND], 25131) and incident fatal/nonfatal outcomes in UK Biobank (VTE, 2321; CHD, 3385). Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, diabetes, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS Of the 731728 participants from the ERFC. 403 396 (55.1%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at the time of the survey was 51.9 (9.0) years; of the 421537 participants from the UK Biobank, 233 699 (55.4%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at the time of the survey was 56.4 (8.1) years. Risk factors for VTE included older age (ERFC: HR per decade, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.45-2.91; UK Biobank: HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.71-1.92), current smoking (ERFC: HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.20-1.58; UK Biobank: HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.40), and BMI (ERFC: HR per 1-SD higher BMI, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.50; UK Biobank: HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.32-1.41). For these factors, there were similar HRs for pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis in UK Biobank (except adiposity was more strongly associated with pulmonary embolism) and similar HRs for unprovoked vs provoked VTE. Apart from adiposity, these risk factors were less strongly associated with VTE than CHD. There were inconsistent associations of VTEs with diabetes and blood pressure across ERFC and UK Biobank, and there was limited ability to study lipid and inflammation markers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Older age, smoking, and adiposity were consistently associated with higher VTE risk.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
