Screening for Future Cardiovascular Disease Using Age Alone Compared with Multiple Risk Factors and Age

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Protocol for the 'e-Nudge trial' : a randomised controlled trial of electronic feedback to reduce the cardiovascular risk of individuals in general practice [ISRCTN64828380]

Background: Cardiovascular disease (including coronary heart disease and stroke) is a major cause of death and disability in the United Kingdom, and is to a large extent preventable, by lifestyle modification and drug therapy. The recent standardisation of electronic codes for cardiovascular risk variables through the United Kingdom's new General Practice contract provides an opportunity for the application of risk algorithms to identify high risk individuals. This randomised controlled trial will test the benefits of an automated system of alert messages and practice searches to identify those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care databases. Design: Patients over 50 years old in practice databases will be randomised to the intervention group that will receive the alert messages and searches, and a control group who will continue to receive usual care. In addition to those at high estimated risk, potentially high risk patients will be identified who have insufficient data to allow a risk estimate to be made. Further groups identified will be those with possible undiagnosed diabetes, based either on elevated past recorded blood glucose measurements, or an absence of recent blood glucose measurement in those with established cardiovascular disease. Outcome measures: The intervention will be applied for two years, and outcome data will be collected for a further year. The primary outcome measure will be the annual rate of cardiovascular events in the intervention and control arms of the study. Secondary measures include the proportion of patients at high estimated cardiovascular risk, the proportion of patients with missing data for a risk estimate, and the proportion with undefined diabetes status at the end of the trial

Cardiovascular risk assessment scores for people with diabetes: a systematic review

People with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Multivariate cardiovascular risk scores have been used in many countries to identify individuals who are at high risk of CVD. These risk scores include those originally developed in individuals with diabetes and those developed in a general population. This article reviews the published evidence for the performance of CVD risk scores in diabetic patients by: (1) examining the overall rationale for using risk scores; (2) systematically reviewing the literature on available scores; and (3) exploring methodological issues surrounding the development, validation and comparison of risk scores. The predictive performance of cardiovascular risk scores varies substantially between different populations. There is little evidence to suggest that risk scores developed in individuals with diabetes estimate cardiovascular risk more accurately than those developed in the general population. The inconsistency in the methods used in evaluation studies makes it difficult to compare and summarise the predictive ability of risk scores. Overall, CVD risk scores rank individuals reasonably accurately and are therefore useful in the management of diabetes with regard to targeting therapy to patients at highest risk. However, due to the uncertainty in estimation of true risk, care is needed when using scores to communicate absolute CVD risk to individuals

Cardiovascular risk assessment - From individual risk prediction to estimation of global risk and change in risk in the population

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death and risk prediction formulae such as the Framingham Risk Score have been developed to easily identify patients at high risk that may require therapeutic interventions. Using cardiovascular risk formulae at a population level to estimate and compare average cardiovascular risk among groups has been recently proposed as a way to facilitate surveillance of net cardiovascular risk and target public health interventions. Risk prediction formulas may help to compare interventions that cause effects of different magnitudes and directions in several cardiovascular risk factors, because these formulas assess the net change in risk using easily obtainable clinical variables. Because of conflicting data estimates of the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular disease, risk prediction formulae may be a useful tool to estimate such risk at a population level

The research on endothelial function in women and men at risk for cardiovascular disease (REWARD) study: methodology

Background Endothelial function has been shown to be a highly sensitive marker for the overall cardiovascular risk of an individual. Furthermore, there is evidence of important sex differences in endothelial function that may underlie the differential presentation of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women relative to men. As such, measuring endothelial function may have sex-specific prognostic value for the prediction of CVD events, thus improving risk stratification for the overall prediction of CVD in both men and women. The primary objective of this study is to assess the clinical utility of the forearm hyperaemic reactivity (FHR) test (a proxy measure of endothelial function) for the prediction of CVD events in men vs. women using a novel, noninvasive nuclear medicine -based approach. It is hypothesised that: 1) endothelial dysfunction will be a significant predictor of 5-year CVD events independent of baseline stress test results, clinical, demographic, and psychological variables in both men and women; and 2) endothelial dysfunction will be a better predictor of 5-year CVD events in women compared to men. Methods/Design A total of 1972 patients (812 men and 1160 women) undergoing a dipyridamole stress testing were recruited. Medical history, CVD risk factors, health behaviours, psychological status, and gender identity were assessed via structured interview or self-report questionnaires at baseline. In addition, FHR was assessed, as well as levels of sex hormones via blood draw. Patients will be followed for 5 years to assess major CVD events (cardiac mortality, non-fatal MI, revascularization procedures, and cerebrovascular events). Discussion This is the first study to determine the extent and nature of any sex differences in the ability of endothelial function to predict CVD events. We believe the results of this study will provide data that will better inform the choice of diagnostic tests in men and women and bring the quality of risk stratification in women on par with that of men

Do changes in traditional coronary heart disease risk factors over time explain the association between socio-economic status and coronary heart disease?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Socioeconomic status (SES) predicts coronary heart disease independently of the traditional risk factors included in the Framingham risk score. However, it is unknown whether <it>changes </it>in Framingham risk score variables over time explain the association between SES and coronary heart disease. We examined this question given its relevance to risk assessment in clinical decision making.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study data (initiated in 1987 with 10-years follow-up of 15,495 adults aged 45-64 years in four Southern and Mid-Western communities) were used. SES was assessed at baseline, dichotomized as low SES (defined as low education and/or low income) or not. The time dependent variables - smoking, total and high density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and use of blood pressure lowering medication - were assessed every three years. Ten-year incidence of coronary heart disease was based on EKG and cardiac enzyme criteria, or adjudicated death certificate data. Cox survival analyses examined the contribution of SES to heart disease risk independent of baseline Framingham risk score, without and with further adjustment for the time dependent variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Adjusting for baseline Framingham risk score, low SES was associated with an increased coronary heart disease risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.53; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.27 to1.85). After further adjustment for the time dependent variables, the SES effect remained significant (HR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19 to1.74).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using Framingham Risk Score alone under estimated the coronary heart disease risk in low SES persons. This bias was not eliminated by subsequent changes in Framingham risk score variables.</p