The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Prognostic value of the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation and the UKPDS risk engine for coronary heart disease in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: results from a United Kingdom study

Prognostic value of the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation and the UKPDS risk engine for coronary heart disease in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: results from a United Kingdom study
Prognostic value of the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation and the UKPDS risk engine for coronary heart disease in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: results from a United Kingdom study
AIMS: To determine the prognostic value of the Framingham equation and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine in patients with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A community-based cohort (n=428; aged 30-74 years) free of clinically evident CVD and newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were studied over a median 4.2 (sd+/-0.62) years. Predicted (using baseline variables at diagnosis) and observed proportions of primary CVD and CHD events were compared using the Framingham equations and the UKPDS risk engine (only CHD events). The discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (HLchi2) of the risk equations were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of the Framingham equation at a 15%, 10-year CHD risk threshold (NICE guidelines) was compared with that of the ADA lipid threshold (LDLc>or=2.6 mmol/l or triglycerides>or=4.5 mmol/l). RESULTS: The Framingham equations underestimated the overall number of cardiovascular events by 33% and coronary events by 32% and showed modest discrimination and poor calibration for CVD [c=0.673; HLchi2=32.8 (P<0.001)] and CHD risk [c=0.657; HLchi2=19.8 (P=0.011)]. Although the overall underestimate was lower and non-significant with the UKPDS risk engine for CHD (13%), its performance in terms of discrimination and calibration were similar [c=0.670; HLchi2=17.1 (P=0.029)]. The 15%, 10-year CHD risk threshold with both the Framingham and UKPDS risk engines had similar sensitivity for primary CVD as the lipid level threshold [85.7 and 89.8% vs. 93.9% (P=0.21 and 0.34)] and both had greater specificity [33.0 and 30.3% vs. 12.1% (P<0.001 and P<0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: In people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes, both the Framingham equation and UKPDS risk engine are moderately effective at identifying those at high-risk (discrimination) and are poor at quantifying risk (calibration). Nonetheless, at a population level, a 15% 10-year CHD risk threshold using either risk calculator has similar sensitivity as an approach based on a single lipid risk factor level and may have benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness given the improved specificity
sensitivity and specificity, follow-up studies, population, coronary disease, methods, cohort, risk assessment, type 2, risk, disease, research support, complications, heart, predictive value of tests, diagnosis, guidelines, middle aged, male, aged, humans, adult, non-u.s.gov't, cohort studies, risk factors, great britain, coronary heart disease, female, etiology, diabetes, diabetes mellitus, patients, diabetic angiopathies
0742-3071
554-562
Guzder, R.N.
734c858d-5c8d-40f8-800b-bec95061cfec
Gatling, W.
20844dbd-6b21-42ea-8348-28b462584688
Mullee, M.A.
fd3f91c3-5e95-4f56-8d73-260824eeb362
Mehta, R.L.
df063eb1-a3c5-4fdb-8620-152a1de20875
Byrne, C.D.
1370b997-cead-4229-83a7-53301ed2a43c
Guzder, R.N.
734c858d-5c8d-40f8-800b-bec95061cfec
Gatling, W.
20844dbd-6b21-42ea-8348-28b462584688
Mullee, M.A.
fd3f91c3-5e95-4f56-8d73-260824eeb362
Mehta, R.L.
df063eb1-a3c5-4fdb-8620-152a1de20875
Byrne, C.D.
1370b997-cead-4229-83a7-53301ed2a43c

Guzder, R.N., Gatling, W., Mullee, M.A., Mehta, R.L. and Byrne, C.D. (2005) Prognostic value of the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation and the UKPDS risk engine for coronary heart disease in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: results from a United Kingdom study. Diabetic Medicine, 22 (5), 554-562. (doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01494.x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

AIMS: To determine the prognostic value of the Framingham equation and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine in patients with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A community-based cohort (n=428; aged 30-74 years) free of clinically evident CVD and newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were studied over a median 4.2 (sd+/-0.62) years. Predicted (using baseline variables at diagnosis) and observed proportions of primary CVD and CHD events were compared using the Framingham equations and the UKPDS risk engine (only CHD events). The discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (HLchi2) of the risk equations were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of the Framingham equation at a 15%, 10-year CHD risk threshold (NICE guidelines) was compared with that of the ADA lipid threshold (LDLc>or=2.6 mmol/l or triglycerides>or=4.5 mmol/l). RESULTS: The Framingham equations underestimated the overall number of cardiovascular events by 33% and coronary events by 32% and showed modest discrimination and poor calibration for CVD [c=0.673; HLchi2=32.8 (P<0.001)] and CHD risk [c=0.657; HLchi2=19.8 (P=0.011)]. Although the overall underestimate was lower and non-significant with the UKPDS risk engine for CHD (13%), its performance in terms of discrimination and calibration were similar [c=0.670; HLchi2=17.1 (P=0.029)]. The 15%, 10-year CHD risk threshold with both the Framingham and UKPDS risk engines had similar sensitivity for primary CVD as the lipid level threshold [85.7 and 89.8% vs. 93.9% (P=0.21 and 0.34)] and both had greater specificity [33.0 and 30.3% vs. 12.1% (P<0.001 and P<0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: In people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes, both the Framingham equation and UKPDS risk engine are moderately effective at identifying those at high-risk (discrimination) and are poor at quantifying risk (calibration). Nonetheless, at a population level, a 15% 10-year CHD risk threshold using either risk calculator has similar sensitivity as an approach based on a single lipid risk factor level and may have benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness given the improved specificity

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: May 2005
Keywords: sensitivity and specificity, follow-up studies, population, coronary disease, methods, cohort, risk assessment, type 2, risk, disease, research support, complications, heart, predictive value of tests, diagnosis, guidelines, middle aged, male, aged, humans, adult, non-u.s.gov't, cohort studies, risk factors, great britain, coronary heart disease, female, etiology, diabetes, diabetes mellitus, patients, diabetic angiopathies

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 61806
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61806
ISSN: 0742-3071
PURE UUID: 157f6295-6d02-45cb-ae2a-384d909049cd
ORCID for C.D. Byrne: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6322-7753

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Sep 2008
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: R.N. Guzder
Author: W. Gatling
Author: M.A. Mullee
Author: R.L. Mehta
Author: C.D. Byrne ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×