Journal
DIABETOLOGIA
Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages 644-656Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-021-05640-y
Keywords
Cardiovascular disease; Diabetes; Prediction; Risk score
Categories
Funding
- National Productivity Investment Fund-MRC Doctoral Training Programme [MR/S502522/1]
- UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
- BHF [PG/18/5033837, FS/17/70/33482]
- UCL BHF Research Accelerator [AA/18/6/34223]
- MRC Unit grant [MRC_UU_00019/1]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study aimed to compare the performance of risk prediction scores for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. The Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) CVD rule derived in the general population performed best for both CVD and a broader definition of CVD. Simple recalibration considerably improved the performance of the scores.
Aims/hypothesis We aimed to compare the performance of risk prediction scores for CVD (i.e., coronary heart disease and stroke), and a broader definition of CVD including atrial fibrillation and heart failure (CVD+), in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods Scores were identified through a literature review and were included irrespective of the type of predicted cardiovascular outcome or the inclusion of individuals with type 2 diabetes. Performance was assessed in a contemporary, representative sample of 168,871 UK-based individuals with type 2 diabetes (age >= 18 years without pre-existing CVD+). Missing observations were addressed using multiple imputation. Results We evaluated 22 scores: 13 derived in the general population and nine in individuals with type 2 diabetes. The Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) CVD rule derived in the general population performed best for both CVD (C statistic 0.67 [95% CI 0.67, 0.67]) and CVD+ (C statistic 0.69 [95% CI 0.69, 0.70]). The C statistic of the remaining scores ranged from 0.62 to 0.67 for CVD, and from 0.64 to 0.69 for CVD+. Calibration slopes (1 indicates perfect calibration) ranged from 0.38 (95% CI 0.37, 0.39) to 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.76) for CVD, and from 0.41 (95% CI 0.40, 0.42) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.86, 0.90) for CVD+. A simple recalibration process considerably improved the performance of the scores, with calibration slopes now ranging between 0.96 and 1.04 for CVD. Scores with more predictors did not outperform scores with fewer predictors: for CVD+, QRISK3 (19 variables) had a C statistic of 0.68 (95% CI 0.68, 0.69), compared with SCORE CVD (six variables) which had a C statistic of 0.69 (95% CI 0.69, 0.70). Scores specific to individuals with diabetes did not discriminate better than scores derived in the general population: the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) scores performed significantly worse than SCORE CVD (p value <0.001). Conclusions/interpretation CVD risk prediction scores could not accurately identify individuals with type 2 diabetes who experienced a CVD event in the 10 years of follow-up. All 22 evaluated models had a comparable and modest discriminative ability.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available