4.7 Article

The Framingham risk score and heart disease in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Journal

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
Volume 32, Issue 6, Pages 945-950

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2011.02753.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health [R01 DK82426]
  2. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [R01 AR30582]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The accuracy of the Framingham risk score (FRS) in identifying patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) at higher 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk remains unknown. We aimed at evaluating both the baseline probability of CHD as predicted by the FRS and the actual long-term occurrence of CHD in NAFLD patients. This was a longitudinal study of a community-based cohort. A total of 309 NAFLD patients were followed up for 11.5 +/- 4.1years (total 3554 person-years). The overall calculated 10-year CHD risk was significantly higher in the NAFLD cohort than the absolute CHD risk predicted by the FRS for persons of the same age and gender (10.9 +/- 9.3% vs. 9.9 +/- 5.9%, respectively, P<0.0001), and higher in men than women (12.6 +/- 10.3% vs. 9.6 +/- 8.1%, respectively, P=0.006). New onset CHD occurred in 34 patients (11% vs. 10.9% predicted at baseline, P=NS), whereas 279 (89%) patients did not develop CHD. Using multivariable analysis, the FRS was the only variable significantly associated with new onset CHD (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.051.21; P=0.001). A FRS cut-point of 11 in women, and 6 in men had a sensitivity of 80% and 74%, respectively, and a negative predictive value of 97% and 93% respectively. NAFLD patients have a higher 10-year CHD risk than the general population of the same age and gender. The FRS accurately predicts the higher 10-year CHD risk in NAFLD patients, and helps identify those patients expected to derive the most benefit from early intervention to prevent CHD events.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available