Accuracy of four cardiovascular risk scores in a Swiss population-based cohort

Purpose: To assess the global cardiovascular (CV) risk of an individual, several scores have been developed. However, their accuracy and comparability need to be evaluated in populations others from which they were derived. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive accuracy of 4 CV risk scores using data of a large population-based cohort. Methods: Prospective cohort study including 4980 participants (2698 women, mean age± SD: 52.7±10.8 years) in Lausanne, Switzerland followed for an average of 5.5 years (range 0.2 - 8.5). Two end points were assessed: 1) coronary heart disease (CHD), and 2) CV diseases (CVD). Four risk scores were compared: original and recalibrated Framingham coronary heart disease scores (1998 and 2001); original PROCAM score (2002) and its recalibrated version for Switzerland (IAS-AGLA); Reynolds risk score. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C statistics, model fitness using Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and calibration using pseudo Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The sensitivity, specificity and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were assessed for each risk score using the highest risk category ([20+ % at 10 years) as the "positive" test. Results: Recalibrated and original 1998 and original 2001 Framingham scores show better discrimination (>0.720) and model fitness (low AIC) for CHD and CVD. All 4 scores are correctly calibrated (Chi2<20). The recalibrated Framingham 1998 score has the best sensitivities, 37.8% and 40.4%, for CHD and CVD, respectively. All scores present specificities >90%. Framingham 1998, PROCAM and IAS-AGLA scores include the greatest proportion of subjects (>200) in the high risk category whereas recalibrated Framingham 2001 and Reynolds include <=44 subjects. Conclusion: In this cohort, we see variations of accuracy between risk scores, the original Framingham 2001 score demonstrating the best compromise between its accuracy and its limited selection of subjects in the highest risk category. We advocate that national guidelines, based on independently validated data, take into account calibrated CV risk scores for their respective countries.