Derivation and validation of a 10-year risk score for symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can occur in patients who are ineligible for routine ultrasound screening. A simple AAA risk score was derived and compared with current guidelines used for ultrasound screening of AAA. METHODS: United Kingdom Biobank participants without previous AAA were split into a derivation cohort (n=401820, 54.6% women, mean age 56.4 years, 95.5% White race) and validation cohort (n=83816). Incident AAA was defined as first hospital inpatient diagnosis of AAA, death from AAA, or an AAA-related surgical procedure. A multivariable Cox model was developed in the derivation cohort into an AAA risk score that did not require blood biomarkers. To illustrate the sensitivity and specificity of the risk score for AAA, a theoretical threshold to refer patients for ultrasound at 0.25% 10-year risk was modeled. Discrimination of the risk score was compared with a model of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) AAA screening guidelines. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, there were 1570 (0.40%) cases of AAA over a median 11.3 years of follow-up. Components of the AAA risk score were age (stratified by smoking status), weight (stratified by smoking status), antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medication use, height, diastolic blood pressure, baseline cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. In the validation cohort, over 10 years of follow-up, the C-index for the model of the USPSTF guidelines was 0.705 (95% CI, 0.678–0.733). The C-index of the risk score as a continuous variable was 0.856 (95% CI, 0.837–0.878). In the validation cohort, the USPSTF model yielded sensitivity 63.9% and specificity 71.3%. At the 0.25% 10-year risk threshold, the risk score yielded sensitivity 82.1% and specificity 70.7% while also improving the net reclassification index compared with the USPSTF model +0.176 (95% CI, 0.120–0.232). A combined model, whereby risk scoring was combined with the USPSTF model, also improved prediction compared with USPSTF alone (net reclassification index +0.101 [95% CI, 0.055–0.147]). CONCLUSIONS: In an asymptomatic general population, a risk score based on patient age, height, weight, and medical history may improve identification of asymptomatic patients at risk for clinical events from AAA. Further development and validation of risk scores to detect asymptomatic AAA are needed

Ethnic differences in prevalence of actionable HbA1c levels in UK biobank: implications for screening

Introduction Early detection and treatment of diabetes as well as its prevention help lessen longer-term complications. We determined the prevalence of pre-diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in the UK Biobank and standardized the results to the UK general population. Research design and methods This cross-sectional study analyzed baseline UK Biobank data on plasma glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to compare the prevalence of pre-diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in white, South Asian, black, and Chinese participants. The overall and ethnic-specific results were standardized to the UK general population aged 40–70 years of age. Results Within the UK Biobank, the overall crude prevalence was 3.6% for pre-diabetes, 0.8% for undiagnosed diabetes, and 4.4% for either. Following standardization to the UK general population, the results were similar at 3.8%, 0.8%, and 4.7%, respectively. Crude prevalence was much higher in South Asian (11.0% pre-diabetes; 3.6% undiagnosed diabetes; 14.6% either) or black (13.8% pre-diabetes; 3.0% undiagnosed diabetes; 16.8% either) participants. Only six middle-aged or old-aged South Asian individuals or seven black would need to be tested to identify an HbA1c result that merits action. Conclusions Single-stage population screening for pre-diabetes or undiagnosed diabetes in middle-old or old-aged South Asian and black individuals using HbA1c could be efficient and should be considere